How to Handle Online Criticism / Conflict

How a nonprofit organization, government office or community initiative handles online criticism and conflict speaks volumes about that organization or initiative, for weeks, months, and maybe even years to come. Your response, or lack their of, can even cause discord offline, among volunteers and employees. Is your response going to make you look credible, transparent and someone people would want to collaborate with in the future, or will it make you look defensive, angry, out-of-control, unprofessional, more concerned with your image than your accomplishments and, perhaps, even unbalanced emotionally?

There is no way to avoid online criticism entirely, but there are ways to address online criticism that can actually help a program to be perceived as even more trustworthy and worth supporting. Criticism doesn't mean failure - it can mean people are paying attention to you, it can mean that your messages are reaching the intended audience, and it can be an opportunity to improve something. An organization MUST be able to honestly and openly deal with online criticism, particularly from supporters and participants. Otherwise, the organization puts itself in a position to lose the trust of supporters and clients, and even generate negative publicity -- and, once lost, trust and credibility can be extremely difficult to win back. Lots of people are watching how you react to online criticism - what do you want that online audience to think about you as a result of your reactions?

Before staff members panic at the idea of supporters not being so supportive, or before the organization panics and removes its online forum and profiles altogether, withdraws its participation from someone else's forum, or gets defensive, remember: being perceived as allowing critical discussions usually, ultimately, reflects very positively on an organization. By contrast, the aforementioned alternative responses can be perceived as negative and will probably do more to hurt the organization's reputation and credibility than help it.

You should address the criticisms directly and promptly, except in a few particular circumstances (more on that later). If you cannot respond immediately, then at least immediately acknowledge that the complaint has been read by the organization and a response is coming promptly . A week or more is not prompt in online community conversations.
Realize that, no matter what you say, your organization's actions are going to speak much louder than its words. Examples:
- If you say a response is coming promptly, then it had better come promptly. Again, a week or more is not prompt in online community conversations.
- Don't just say you welcome criticism -- allow critical messages to be posted to your discussion group or comments board on your blog, so long as such criticisms don't use inflammatory language, encourage criminal behavior, are filled with obvious inaccuracies, include confidential information, aren't verbatim posts from the same person over and over again, etc. (and if you ban such a person, say so to the group, so they know such action has been taken, and WHY).
- Walk the talk: If you state that your organization engages in activities to recruit a diverse representation of staff and volunteers, it had better be engaging in actions that back up that statement, obviously and clearly. If you claim to be a "green" organization, make sure a television crew walking through or around your office would see activities that demonstrate this.
- Don't just say your organization is transparent and consults with membership -- show it, in activities that make this quality obvious. In fact, showing it is more important than saying it.
- Posting a response or two and then asking the debate/discussion to stop will result in people perceiving your organization as not open to criticism, and will result in even more of it.
Contrary to a widely-held belief and frequently-made suggestion, you do not disarm criticism by thanking someone for their feedback in the opening statement of a response; it's been done so often that most people see it as the beginning of a "canned" statement. Save the compliment for somewhere else in your response -- and say it only if you can demonstrate that you truly mean it. Volunteers and clients are much more inclined to trust someone who shows respect for them and for what they say. There are a number of ways that you can give a real indication that you are "hearing" the complaints: ask the critic(s), "What do you think would make this situation better?" or "How do you feel this situation could be improved?". Also, assure critics that their criticisms and suggestions will be represented to the leadership at your organization, and that they will receive an update regarding the leadership's reaction. If the criticism is going to result in a change or action of any kind, or a staff meeting to discuss further action, say so! Offer as many details as possible. Also, if it is appropriate, you could even ask a critic to take part in a staff meeting, or create an online forum specifically to address the criticism.
If anything in a criticism is accurate, acknowledge it. That doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with the person. For instance, "You are correct: our organization does not address environmental problems. I understand that such is a very important, even critical issue, but our nonprofit has chosen to focus on preventing the abuse of children, and here's why..." Even better: can you think about the criticism from the person's point of view, and therefore, even agree with some of it? That's a powerful way to turn a critic into a supporter.
Is the critic actually doing you a favor by offering you feedback that may not have been discovered otherwise, when damage was done to your organization's reputation and credibility? Again, acknowledging a real problem is a powerful way to turn a critic into a supporter.

If the complaint is legitimate -- for instance, that the organization's past annual reports aren't on the organization's web site, get them up ASAP, and offer an apology for not having done so earlier. Don't try to defend or excuse your original decision not to. Take the lumps with grace and honesty.
Some excuses can make a situation even worse, even if they are true, and should be avoided, as they are perceived as red flags for incompetence or mismanagement. Excuses to avoid regarding complaints include:
- "we didn't have enough money"
- "we didn't have enough staff"
- "we didn't have enough time"
- "we're an all-volunteer organization"
- "our computer system wasn't working properly"
- "so-and-so was on vacation at that time"
Instead, take responsibility. If the critic is pointing out something your organization should have done, but didn't, for whatever reason, accept the criticism. Consider offering a straightforward and sincere apology, and details on how the problem will be addressed.
You may need to ask for clarification or more information before you respond to criticism, and that's fine; it will probably be perceived by those watching the online conversation as a very positive step on your part. But don't say, "I don't understand why you are asking these questions" -- every question is legitimate, and should be treated as such.
If a complaint doesn't present the whole story, then do so yourself, as quickly and thoroughly as possible. If a complaint is off-base, counter it with indisputable, dispassionate facts. And offer to supply any other facts that will clarify the situation, and ask the original critic if he or she has any questions or comments about the facts as you have offered them.
Be detailed about how a complaint is addressed. If a decision is made by the organization in response to the complaint, be detailed on how the decision took place and exactly who was involved in making the decision (by job title rather than name is okay). If it was not a democratic process, then say so. Not all decisions can be taken by such, but no matter how a decision is taken, an organization should be transparent if that decision, especially if it has resulted from a complaint by volunteers or other supporters.
If the person is asking for information you aren't required by law to provide, have a rock-solid reason not providing that information that is not, "We aren't required by law to provide that." For instance, you aren't required by law to detail on your web site how you on-board volunteers - what background checks you do, what the orientation and training is like, etc. But you still should do that. You aren't required by law to state the dates of the events your nonprofit says it regularly holds, but you still should do that.
On your own online spaces, don't post one or two responses and then ask for the debate to stop if issues are still being explored. A better strategy is to let the debate play out, at least while disputes are explored. If you respond to a criticism, and someone says, "that didn't address my criticism", then re-review the original post and respond again, and/or ask the person what would better address their concerns. If it takes answering each question or sentence individually, do so. Also, ask the entire community how they feel about the debate -- are their own questions or concerns being addressed? As long as someone doesn't meet the definition of a troll (see below), let the debate rage on. In the best of worlds, the community itself will bring the debate to a halt -- and be your greatest "defenders."
If the criticism is of an action that is not negotiable/changeable, then be prepared to both stand your ground AND to sincerely acknowledge the criticism. If, after considering the criticisms of your choice of a conference site, your logo redesign, your new policy regarding volunteer candidate screening, the closing of a branch office, etc., your organization decides it's not going to change the decision, then say so, and say why . But also acknowledge any of the legitimate grievances the critics have: should you have made the decision-making more democratic? Should you have solicited feedback before a decision had been made? Should you have better communicated the reason why you undertook an action? Acknowledging such missteps and committing to altering future decision-making as a result of the criticism can take the sting out of the "loss" for critics who don't win "the battle," because you show that, indeed, the criticism did have impact.
It's fine to remind users of your forum or blog posting rules, and what topics are off-limits. It's also a good idea for a staff member to occasionally enter the conversation on your own online forum, to let participants know that staff are aware of what's being discussed, that you appreciate the feedback, and what is happening as a result of the feedback. But don't shut down a negative conversation on your online discussion group just because it's negative. If you feel that an ongoing debate is stifling discussion of other topics, then consider creating a forum specifically for the debate, and asking users to move the debate to this specially-created forum for such.

What about when the criticisms are happening on someone else's forum, web site or blog? You can't control what other people post on their own online site or blog or profile on an online social networking site such as FaceBook or YouTube unless they violate the law or it violates the site's Terms of Service (ToS). If the site allows online discussion or has a comments board, you should engage in any of the aforementioned activities on this other person's site, and invite the other forum's participants to write you directly for further information/clarification. If the site does not have a discussion forum or comments board, you should write directly to the author with your information/clarification. You may also consider posting information on your own online forum in response, if you feel that the criticisms could cause concerns among supporters.

How can you find out if online criticism is happening outside of your own online fora? Ask your volunteers to be on the lookout for postings about your organization on the online groups, blogs and social networking sites they frequent -- encourage them to pass on such information so your organization can be more in tune with public opinion, NOT so you can shut down criticism. Also, go to Google or any other online directory system and search for your organization's name, or the name of your organization's executive director. You may find criticism or praise from a volunteer, donor, or client about your organization that you will want to address. You should also check your organization's name on Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia that is staffed by online volunteers. If your organization is listed, is the listing accurate and complete? Is there a subject listing that you feel should link to your organization's web site? It's easy to edit listings yourself on the service, which are then verified by wikipedia volunteers.

And what should you do if you find someone is writing blogs or producing videos that are critical about your program, or has written a negative review on a third party site like Yelp? It depends on so many things. If it's someone else's opinion, the best course may be to live with that and ignore it, as people are entitled to their opinions about you and your work, even if you strongly disagree with it. If the person has gotten facts wrong - if they say you didn't have an event on a certain date in a certain place, but you did - you may want to comment on their blog or social media post and say so. Sites like Yelp allow you to respond to reviews, and you may want to do that, in a factual, dispassionate way. You may NOT want to respond at all, especially on your own blog or social media post, or on a YouTube video, because then you create more publicity for the criticism, shining a spotlight on something that you really do not want more people to read.

When reading an online complaint, consider: is the complaint an indication of a greater problem? Could there be a credibility gap among some supporters that could spread to others if not addressed? Could online criticism be an indication of a problem or perception among supporters you were not previously aware of? It might be worth brainstorming with staff and supporters onsite, in a special meeting, to find out if there is something more to criticisms that might initially meet the eye... or the heart. A blog at CNET by Dana Blankenhorn on "How open should your open source business strategy be" is something anyone working in public relations/press relations should read, including nonprofit organizations. Blankenhorn uses an example of one CEO at an open source business who blogs openly and thoughtfully about criticisms of his company and himself. Blankenhorn notes that "success in open source also requires transparency in other areas, even when it comes to development strategy, and a willingness to acknowledge what others may see as mistakes in that strategy. She says, "This goes beyond merely engaging with your community, but treating critics as adults rather than as adversaries, and questions as opportunities to provide insight... a willingness to listen and even change your mind in response to criticism." As I wrote in my own blog, agreeing with hers, "Isn't the same true for nonprofit organizations? Isn't it necessary, because of the nature of nonprofit organizations, that they must be transparent about their program development strategies and activities, and be willing to acknowledge what others may see as mistakes in that strategy, in a thoughtful and open way, in order to distinguish themselves from other sectors and to garner community investment?"

Where might people be complaining about my program?

In addition to your online community, on the comments on your posts to your program's Facebook page, on comments on a blog you publish, or other online spaces you created and control, criticism can show up on:

Individual's own Facebook or blog spaces (which may or may not be public)

Email sent to you.

Other organization's online communities.

Reddit.

greatnonprofits.org

ripoffreport.com

Yelp

glassdoor.com

Google Reviews

Here's advice specifically on how to use online tools to find out when your organization or key staff members are being named on public fora.

When to delete and block?

What did I mean earlier when I said "a few particular circumstances"? I meant trolls. Someone who is disgruntled, suspicious and questioning is NOT automatically a troll -- be careful in dismissing someone as such, to avoid being seen as just trying to shut down legitimate, although uncomfortable, conversation.

Someone moves from being an angry or frustrated person with legitimate criticism to being a troll when that person:

is arguing online for the sole purpose of derailing conversations and creating mistrust among donors, clients, volunteers, employees and others.
is straying from facts.
is making insulting personal comments.
posts the same information over and over again.
posts messages obviously designed to annoy and antagonize people and engage them in a fruitless confrontation.
points to the online conflict on a variety of social media platforms in an effort to further antagonize, have their comments show up in search engine results about a person or program, attract more viewers to the conflict, etc.
spends more time engaging in their online criticism than they do promoting their own business or being positive online.
calls people on the phone or shows up at onsite events in an effort to move the online conflict to more personal spaces and cause more disruption.

You are or your organization is entirely inline to prohibit certain topics from discussion its own forums, such as information about clients, internal documents, and other confidential information, or to censor such information from your blog or any online space you manage. You are within your rights to censor foul language, and to ban someone from your own online spaces for using such. Again, if you ban someone, the group needs to know who and why.

You may decide to block a troll - someone who seems to exist mostly to criticize you or your organization - from seeing your posts on any social media platform. The only downside of that is that you cannot see what they might be posting about you - that may be for the best, but if the person might spread misinformation about your program or a person to a large audience, or might threaten violence, it's something you will want to know about immediately, and you can't if you block them. If the person is calling you on the phone, absolutely block their number - no one has the right to call you on the phone if you don't wish to talk to them.

But trolls can, indeed, be more than annoying: ongoing posts and insults can cross the line at some point into online harassment.

PEN America is a registered 501(c)(3) organization. It is headquartered in New York City, with offices in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Founded in 1922, PEN America is the largest of the more than 100 centers worldwide that make up the PEN International network. PEN America works to ensure that people everywhere have the freedom to create literature, to convey information and ideas, to express their views, and to access the views, ideas, and literatures of others. Its members are a nationwide community of more than 7,200 novelists, journalists, nonfiction writers, editors, poets, essayists, playwrights, publishers, translators, agents, and other writing professionals, as well as devoted readers and supporters who join with them to carry out PEN America’s mission. Writers and journalists, particularly women, are facing unprecedented levels of online hate and harassment. PEN America has created an Online Harassment Field Manual that has strategies and resources that writers and journalists, their allies and their employers can use to defend against cyber hate & online abuse. I highly, highly, highly recommend it for nonprofits as well. Manual chapters include:

Prepare for Online Harassment - Tactics, tips, and guidelines for protecting your online presence and accounts
Respond to Online Harassment - Strategies for response, including assessing threats, navigating social media and email, deploying cyber communities, and practicing counterspeech
Practicing Self-Care - Advice for practicing self-care and maintaining community during online harassment
Legal Considerations - What to expect when turning to law enforcement during online harassment
Requesting and Providing Support - How-to guides and helpful information for targeted writers, their allies, and their employers
Learn More about Online Harassment - What is online harassment, what forms does it take, and why is it a free expression issue?

Should you threaten to sue?

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and this shouldn't be considered official legal advice.

Defamation is when someone's words end up causing harm to someone else’s reputation or livelihood. Libel is a written or published defamatory statement. Slander is defamation that is spoken by the defendant. And defamation is not always illegal - it depends on the laws of your country and state.

A difference in opinion, a difference in how something is observed, does not meet the legal definition defamation, at least in the USA. A person calling your event boring, your executive director unworthy of praise or your programs silly is not committing defamation. A person saying that it is suspicious that your web site doesn't list your board of directors or the qualifications of your staff is not committing defamation. A person saying, "I find this nonprofit questionable in terms of its effectiveness" is not committing defamation . Even if your reputation is damaged by a comment, an insulting comment, a critical comment, you may not be able to collect any money if the communication was true or if the person can show that they were not neglectful in making the comment - if they can present evidence that shows why they made that statement and thought it was true.

And consider the consequences of a lawsuit: you are bringing publicity to the critical statements - you are tying yourself and your organization much more closely to them. A great example of this is actions by US Representative Devin Nunes, who is upset that there are parody accounts criticizing him on Twitter, like Devin Nunes' Cow. But instead of ignoring the account, he has decided to try to sue, which has lead to many thousands of people following the parody accounts he dislikes so much - his lawsuit has brought more attention to the accounts than they would ever have had otherwise. The lawsuits have also made the parody accounts look like Davids against an evil Goliath in the press. The negative media attention his lawsuits are bringing are far more damaging than what the parody accounts are saying, in my opinion.

A much better idea may be to simply write a rebuttal on your own blog and then move on with no further comment.

Even if you are seeing a drop in event attendance, a drop in the number of volunteers, or a drop in donations, and you think it's because people have a growing sense of negativity about your program or someone associated with such, your first reaction shouldn't be "let's sue!" Again, you may end up giving the critic more attention and create more believers in that person's narrative. If you have built trust with clients, volunteers and donors, you have an army of people that would probably love to be a part of videos, podcasts, blogs and memes celebrating your organization and the great work it does - and this can be far, far more effective in countering a negative narrative than a lawsuit.

Here are web sites that offer good summaries of defamation and libel and your legal options - and, if things turn even more dire, online harassment and cyberstalking.

Creating Trust

If you have already worked to create trust with those with those whom you interact online, long before criticisms surface, through transparent and honest information in past communications, you are going to have a much better time dealing with online criticism; readers will already trust you, and be ready to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you have volunteers who are enthusiastic about their experience with you, donors who are committed to seeing your organization succeed, lots of clients who have had a positive experience with your programs, you have all you need to counter negative messaging online. I'll say it again: if you have built trust with clients, volunteers and donors, you have an army of people that would probably love to be a part of videos, podcasts, blogs and memes celebrating your organization and the great work it does - and this can be far, far more effective in countering a negative narrative than a lawsuit.

Online criticism is not always a bad thing

A short case study: the Henderson Humane Society
In March 2005, the local government of Henderson County, Kentucky (my hometown), received information from a staff person at the Henderson Humane Society, which operates the animal shelter there. This information documented horrific conditions at the shelter and gross mismanagement. Unfortunately, not much changed, so the staff person then contacted the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which then launched an online campaign in the Fall of 2005, and a local television station, which produced a story about the inhumane conditions at the shelter. It was the online criticism and online activism, as well as the resulting local press coverage and further public outrage, that at last prompted radical changes at the shelter, and a vastly-improved organization. In April 2006, the local newspaper ran a glowing story about the changes at the shelter. How the organization handled its initial criticism -- by ignoring it -- lead to even more intense and public criticism, including online with a major national advocacy organization, and a great deal of public mistrust and loss of credibility. How it handled the resulting more intense criticism, by accepting it fully, by firing some staff members, by changing leadership and by addressing complaints, has lead to a very different, and much better, organization that's on its way to restoring its credibility.

Another short case study: a Chicago nonprofit asked for feedback online about its YouTube video - was the response criticism, or free consulting?! The comments may have bruised someone's ego, but the criticisms were all legit, and the comments offered solid, credible advice for improving the online video campaign.

But what about an organized, pervasive online effort to discredit your nonprofit organization, one that results in individuals, knowingly or naively, spreading falsehoods, about your organization via various online fora? A good example of this is the seemingly-grassroots campaign to discredit the UN Population Fund by a variety of right-wing activists. I've written to UNFPA directly to see if they will share their strategies to counter such efforts, and posted to various online fora to gather ideas from other organizations -- I'll update this page as soon as I can pull together some concrete good examples (can't seem to get anyone's attention at UNFPA...).

Support Your Local Online Discussion Manager!

When you, the Executive Director or Marketing Manager or Program Director, see your online discussion manager facilitating an online debate about something your organization is or isn't doing, the temptation may be for you, the senior person, to jump in and start posting. That may or may not be a good idea. It's a good idea if there is something you need to clarify that you can say better than your online discussion manager, particularly if it might relieve pressure on that person and allow him or her to move the discussion forward. It's also a good idea if you see the manager under fire - it can be wonderfully motivating for an online community manager that is bruised from an online virtual debate to see your public support for him or her, and it can help for discussion group members see your faith in that person. However, it's a bad idea if you are seen as "taking over;" your posting to the discussion can disempower your online discussion manager, reducing his or her importance to the community. Why should the community look to that person as their liaison with the organization online, when you've made it clear that YOU are higher up and in-charge, and you took over the discussion? If you think there is a different way to handle an online situation than your online discussion manager is doing, talk with that person FIRST, and if at all possible, have the discussion manager continue to be the lead in facilitating the discussion. If you must post something, be sure to add verbiage that shows you still have faith and trust in your online discussion manager, and that you fully support that person.

In Addition...

On a related note, I have also been gathering and sharing examples for several years now of how folklore, rumors, urban myths and misinformation campaigns interfere with development and aid/relief efforts, as well as recommendations on preventing or responding to such.

Also see the February 2008 Beth Kanter blog entry, "Transparency, Social Media, and Dealing with Criticism"; the second case she relates, regarding Seagulls Global Internship International and its new logo, as well as and the blog comments, are an excellent example of what online criticism can look like among supporters and ways to handle such (and please note that I used the example at the start of this page regarding controversy over a new logo back in 2006; that's how common such controversies are!).

And view as well "Apology's Sorry State", by Workforce Management editor John Hollon. "Even at that point, when they finally, grudgingly admitted their transgression, the 'apology' I received was terribly shallow and totally insincere. I came away from the incident wondering how the company manages to keep any customers at all given such a ham-handed business philosophy. Who wants to deal with an organization that behaves like that?... a timely, personal and sincere apology could have turned me around and made me feel really positive toward the organization. Instead, I was left with the strong impression that it was a shoddy operation with bad business practices an organization that would do the right thing only if somebody forced it to."

Also see this this profile of Captain David Faggard, Chief of Emerging Technology, US Air Force, who says that he wants to foster an environment in which all enlisted personnel are equipped to engage in online discussions about the US Air Force -- that's a 330,000-member communications team. Have a look at this Air Force Web Posting Response Assessment flow chart in PDF and think about how you can adapt it for your own organization.

Example...

Here's an example of online criticism - by me, about a government office where I live. They handled it by ignoring me. What do you think my impression is of this organization now, not only because of my complaint, but because they made no effort to address such? If you were in charge of this initiative, how would YOU handle it?

Also see:

Recommendations for UN & UNDP in Ukraine to use Twitter, Facebook, Blogs and Other Social Media to Promote Reconciliation, Social Inclusion, & Peace-Building in Ukraine (PDF)
This is a draft document I submitted to UNDP Ukraine just before I left Kyiv in October 2014, having completed my term there as a "Surge" Communications Advisor. This draft document offers considerations and recommendations for social media messaging that promotes reconciliation, social inclusion, and peace-building in Ukraine. It provides ideas for messaging related to promoting tolerance, respect and reconciliation in the country, and messaging to counter bigotry, prejudice, inequality, misperceptions and misconceptions about a particular group of people or different people among Ukrainians as a whole.
UNESCO's Countering Online Hate Speech, a free publication from UNESCO (pdf), spends most of its time talking about what is and isn't hate speech, but does have some good information about countering hate speech and misinformation, without censorship, in the chapter “Analysing Social Responses”, specifically the sections on Monitoring and discussing hate speech, Mobilizing civil society, Countering online hate speech through media and information literacy, Citizenship education and digital citizenship, Education as a tool against hate speech, Development of critical skills to counteract hate speech online, Educational goals of media and information literacy to respond to hate speech, and Assessing media and information literacy and education initiatives (pages 33-41, and 46-52).
Online culture and online community
It's becoming the norm for mission-based organizations (NGOs, NPOs and others) to use Internet tools to work with volunteers (including board members), staff, donors and others. This section of my site has been greatly updated, providing even more ideas and resources on how to work with others online, in language that's easy to understand for those considering or just getting started in using online technologies with volunteers, donors and other supporters.
Launching & Maintaining a Successful Online Community for a Neighborhood, Town, City or County
There are lots of resources for how to start and maintain an online community, but they are focused on online communities for customers of a company, or people all working in a particular career field (knowledge communities), or people all engaged in a similar activity, or people all suffering from the same condition (support communities). But the resources for helping people launch and maintain a successful online community for people living or working in neighborhood, town, city or county, a community that's meant to help neighbors get to know each other and to build offline community are hard to find. This resource is meant to help with those that are moderating online communities to build a sense of community offline focus on people living or working in particular neighborhoods or towns, parents of students at a particular school or all of the residents of a building or compound. These online communities are meant to promote civility, respect and thoughtfulness among members offline, and this resource is meant to help moderators and facilitators reach those goals.
Mission-Based Groups Need Use the Web to Show Accountability
The number and tone of media stories regarding mission-based organizations/civil society and how they have spent contributions in the wake of various disasters (Sept. 11, Katrina, etc.) have done little to help such organizations better serve people in need. Rather, by concentrating on a few bad cases, or by misrepresenting administrative expenses as somehow unnecessary, they have made potential supporters suspicious of all charities, and those these organization's serve pay the ultimate price. There has never been a better time for mission-based organizations to use technology to show their transparency and credibility, and to teach the media and general public about the resources needed to address critical human and environmental needs.
Twitter for Nonprofits, Government Agencies, Other "Mission-Based" Organizations.
Are you ready to use Twitter in a way that meets ALL of your organization's communications goals? It takes a lot much more than posting links to press releases and announcement of new events. If you want to leverage Twitter to entice new donors, recruit new volunteers, help current volunteers feel like they are valued by your organization, reach new clients, change people's feelings or behavior about the cause that your mission centers around and helps a variety of people understand the value your organization brings, this resource is for you.
For Schools: You Should Be Using Social Media. Here's How
There are a lot of web sites saying what the benefits are for schools to use social media. But there's few that give specifics on what a public school should be sharing via Facebook, Twitter, etc. This advice talks not only about exactly what your school should be posting to social media, but the consequences of not doing so, as well how to handle tough questions and criticism. It also links to legal advice.
For Local City & County Governments: You Should Be Using Social Media. Here's How
To not be using social media to deliver information and to engage means you are denying critical information to much of your community and promoting an image of secrecy and lack of transparency. In fact, the lack of use of social media can be seen as your city council or county government trying to hide something, and even lead to rumors that are much harder to dispel than they would have been to prevent. This advice talks not only about exactly what your school should be posting to social media, but also how to handle tough questions and criticism.
The Nonprofit & NGO Guide to Using Reddit
As of July 2019, Reddit ranked as the No. 5 most visited website in the USA and No. 13 in the world. Reddit is a community of communities, and its communities are called subreddits. A subreddit can have a focus on a geographic area, a book, a celebrity, a particular time in history, a specific hobby - anything. Statistics suggest that 74% of Reddit users are male. Users tend to be significantly younger than other online communities like Facebook with less than 1% of users being 65 or over. If you want to reach a younger demographic regarding your volunteering opportunities, your awareness messages, your data that shows your value to the community and more, you need to build posts to Reddit into your marketing strategy, no matter what your nonprofit's size or focus. This resource tells you how to do it.
Nonprofits & governments programs rejecting staff per social media activities
In 2006 and 2008, there was a thread on the TechSoup Community forum that I think is worth saving. It took a while to find on archive.org, but I did! The original subject for this discussion was rejecting a volunteer per online activity/online profile, but it grew into talking about employees and candidates for employment as well. Here's most of the thread.

See more resources re: Outreach & Engagement, With and Without Technology

Quick Links

my home page

my consulting services & my workshops & presentations

my credentials & expertise

my research projects

my book: The Last Virtual Volunteering Guidebook

How to Support This Web Site & My Work

contact me or see my schedule

Free Resources: Community Outreach, With & Without Tech

Free Resources: Nonprofit, NGO & other mission-based management resources

Free Resources: Technology Tips for Non-Techies

Free Resources: Web Development, Maintenance, Marketing for non-Web designers

Free Resources: For people & groups that want to volunteer

linking to or from my web site

Coyote Helps Foundation

me on social media (follow me, like me, put me in a circle, subscribe to my newsletter)

how to support my work & this web site

Follow me on social media:

Disclaimer: No guarantee of accuracy or suitability is made by the poster/distributor. This material is provided as is, with no expressed or implied warranty.

See this web site's privacy policy.

Permission is granted to copy, present and/or distribute a limited amount of material from my web site without charge if the information is kept intact and without alteration, and is credited to:

Jayne
Cravens & Coyote Communications,
www.coyotecommunications.com

Otherwise, please contact me for permission to reprint, present or distribute these materials (for instance, in a class or book or online event for which you intend to charge).