Comments on: Network for what now? http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/10/network-for-what-now/ Exploring how to get real change for your dollar. Thu, 17 May 2012 06:13:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: ROI (Results on Insights): Nonprofit Examples of How Listening Returns Value http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/10/network-for-what-now/#comment-50926 Wed, 04 Feb 2009 07:14:53 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/10/network-for-what-now/#comment-50926 [...] Correcting Misconceptions and Improving Customer/Stakeholder RelationsThe AirForce Blog:   The image above is of the US Air Force Blog Assessment and Engagement process.  It is an excellent example of working through how an organization might respond to comments on a blog, but even better it is map for insight harvesting.    As David Meerman Scott notes in his analysis of their social media strategy, the goal is "to use current and developing Web 2.0 applications as a way to actively engage conversations between Airmen and the general public."  If you were still thinking about ROI as Return on Investment you'd never be able to make a case!  With such a clear policy for response, it is obvious that the blog generates valuable information to shape and improve a marketing strategy. As Pudding Relations suggests "Take a look and see if you can use it to enhance your own thinking around social media with, ahem, military precision." Gulf Coast Regional Blood Center is listens by searching for discussions about blood donations in their local area says Courtney Martin.   Although there is low volume, the listening has provided a lot of value. "We've been able to answer questions for people who want to donate blood but don't know the rules, or who have misconceptions. When we found someone who'd had a negative experience at one of our facilities, we were able to respond to her concern and leave her with a good feeling about our organization.  It was our first true social media success story, and helped validate our social media use to the powers that be at our organization."   No doubt, the listening also provides great content ideas for their blog. Network for Good has some terrific stories about noisy, angry people becoming champions for their services because of active listening and then open engagement with them on social networks or in the comments of blogs.  One example is from the GiveWell Blog which posted a complaint about the Network For Good's fees. Network for Good's Vice President,  Katya Andresen, left a comment in response which lead to a conversation and this follow up post from GiveWell.   After some back and forth conversation, including asking for his input when they changed their fee structure, GiveWell became a supporter and user for Network for Good's services.Getting Ideas for Campaigns or Programs GreenPeace Whale Trail  asked their online visitors for campaign ideas and they got some great ones, like the Great Whale Trail, where they tagged whales and then tracked them using GPS/Google maps. This drove traffic. (Hat tip Miriam Kagan)Improving Program and Service Delivery [...] […] Correcting Misconceptions and Improving Customer/Stakeholder RelationsThe AirForce Blog:   The image above is of the US Air Force Blog Assessment and Engagement process.  It is an excellent example of working through how an organization might respond to comments on a blog, but even better it is map for insight harvesting.    As David Meerman Scott notes in his analysis of their social media strategy, the goal is “to use current and developing Web 2.0 applications as a way to actively engage conversations between Airmen and the general public.”  If you were still thinking about ROI as Return on Investment you’d never be able to make a case!  With such a clear policy for response, it is obvious that the blog generates valuable information to shape and improve a marketing strategy. As Pudding Relations suggests “Take a look and see if you can use it to enhance your own thinking around social media with, ahem, military precision.” Gulf Coast Regional Blood Center is listens by searching for discussions about blood donations in their local area says Courtney Martin.   Although there is low volume, the listening has provided a lot of value. “We’ve been able to answer questions for people who want to donate blood but don’t know the rules, or who have misconceptions. When we found someone who’d had a negative experience at one of our facilities, we were able to respond to her concern and leave her with a good feeling about our organization.  It was our first true social media success story, and helped validate our social media use to the powers that be at our organization.”   No doubt, the listening also provides great content ideas for their blog. Network for Good has some terrific stories about noisy, angry people becoming champions for their services because of active listening and then open engagement with them on social networks or in the comments of blogs.  One example is from the GiveWell Blog which posted a complaint about the Network For Good’s fees. Network for Good’s Vice President,  Katya Andresen, left a comment in response which lead to a conversation and this follow up post from GiveWell.   After some back and forth conversation, including asking for his input when they changed their fee structure, GiveWell became a supporter and user for Network for Good’s services.Getting Ideas for Campaigns or Programs GreenPeace Whale Trail  asked their online visitors for campaign ideas and they got some great ones, like the Great Whale Trail, where they tagged whales and then tracked them using GPS/Google maps. This drove traffic. (Hat tip Miriam Kagan)Improving Program and Service Delivery […]

]]> by: Hydrocodone apap 5 500. http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/10/network-for-what-now/#comment-41747 Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:51:29 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/10/network-for-what-now/#comment-41747 <strong>Hydrocodone....</strong> Hydrocodone.... Hydrocodone….

Hydrocodone….

]]> by: Kirt Manecke http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/10/network-for-what-now/#comment-12625 Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:04:42 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/10/network-for-what-now/#comment-12625 I founded and run a small non-profit 501c3 organization (LandChoices. We use Network for Good's online donation services and are very satisfied with the excellent service and record keeping. I run this non-profit during my time off from my full time day job, so ease of use and trust are very important to me, and I can't afford to waste time. Network for Good has been a huge help in assisting me with configuring our new website giving pages. Their customer service is top notch and their people always respond to my inquiries within 24 hours. Network for Good and Katya Andresen have been extremely helpful in helping grow LandChoices and making it more effective through the excellent training classes and by even answering my e-mails personally! I used PayPal in the past on our website but I found it to be a clunky service, tricky for a novice webmaster like me to add to our website so I removed it from our website last year. Perhaps they have improved it by now and I imagine that is the case as I do know that some people prefer to pay using PayPal. Thank you, I simply wanted to add my comments as a user of Network For Good's services. Kirt Manecke, LandChoices' founder and president. I founded and run a small non-profit 501c3 organization (LandChoices. We use Network for Good’s online donation services and are very satisfied with the excellent service and record keeping. I run this non-profit during my time off from my full time day job, so ease of use and trust are very important to me, and I can’t afford to waste time. Network for Good has been a huge help in assisting me with configuring our new website giving pages. Their customer service is top notch and their people always respond to my inquiries within 24 hours.

Network for Good and Katya Andresen have been extremely helpful in helping grow LandChoices and making it more effective through the excellent training classes and by even answering my e-mails personally! I used PayPal in the past on our website but I found it to be a clunky service, tricky for a novice webmaster like me to add to our website so I removed it from our website last year. Perhaps they have improved it by now and I imagine that is the case as I do know that some people prefer to pay using PayPal. Thank you, I simply wanted to add my comments as a user of Network For Good’s services. Kirt Manecke, LandChoices’ founder and president.

]]> by: Katya Andresen http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/10/network-for-what-now/#comment-45 Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:07:09 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/10/network-for-what-now/#comment-45 We will definitely update our website! If you want more information on state registration, check out http://www.uwnyc.org/technews/pf_v8_n2_a2.html and http://www.paperglyphs.com/nporegulation We will definitely update our website! If you want more information on state registration, check out http://www.uwnyc.org/technews/pf_v8_n2_a2.html and http://www.paperglyphs.com/nporegulation

]]> by: Holden http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/10/network-for-what-now/#comment-42 Tue, 13 Feb 2007 02:25:26 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/10/network-for-what-now/#comment-42 Thanks for your comments. Katya - this information confuses me (and apparently Jason) somewhat, but it is definitely better than what your website says on this topic, which is what really got me questioning Network for Good. I think it would be good to consider updating the website. RE JustGive: they have a checkbox that says "Donate $3 to JustGive" that the donor can uncheck. This seems very similar, both in terms of confusion factor and in terms of function, to asking the donor whether they want to add another 4.75% to cover processing costs. As for PayPal, I am planning to call them for their side of the story on registration, because I agree with Jason that this seems strange. You are right that Network for Good provides more functionality for storing donor info, but PayPal's basic operation (providing a receipt to the donor and an email including contact info to the recipient) facilitates thank-you notes and receipts for anyone who can save the emails. Thanks for your comments. Katya - this information confuses me (and apparently Jason) somewhat, but it is definitely better than what your website says on this topic, which is what really got me questioning Network for Good. I think it would be good to consider updating the website.

RE JustGive: they have a checkbox that says “Donate $3 to JustGive” that the donor can uncheck. This seems very similar, both in terms of confusion factor and in terms of function, to asking the donor whether they want to add another 4.75% to cover processing costs.

As for PayPal, I am planning to call them for their side of the story on registration, because I agree with Jason that this seems strange. You are right that Network for Good provides more functionality for storing donor info, but PayPal’s basic operation (providing a receipt to the donor and an email including contact info to the recipient) facilitates thank-you notes and receipts for anyone who can save the emails.

]]> by: Jason R http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/10/network-for-what-now/#comment-41 Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:40:25 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/10/network-for-what-now/#comment-41 I wonder why paypal has not gone through the trouble or registering with all states for fund-raising for non-profits. I would also think its relatively easy for them to set-up a system with online receipts. Likewise I would think that Google would be more than willing to do it (they are supposed to do good). It would be in their own interest to get the fees for non-profit donations, and everyone would benefit through lower cost (i.e. a greater share of donor dollars would reach their recipient). Cut out the well meaning but less efficient (lower economies of scale) non-profit middle-man. Disclaimer: I work about 2 desks over from Holden (and yes he is obnoxious in person). I wonder why paypal has not gone through the trouble or registering with all states for fund-raising for non-profits. I would also think its relatively easy for them to set-up a system with online receipts. Likewise I would think that Google would be more than willing to do it (they are supposed to do good). It would be in their own interest to get the fees for non-profit donations, and everyone would benefit through lower cost (i.e. a greater share of donor dollars would reach their recipient). Cut out the well meaning but less efficient (lower economies of scale) non-profit middle-man. Disclaimer: I work about 2 desks over from Holden (and yes he is obnoxious in person).

]]> by: Katya http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/10/network-for-what-now/#comment-40 Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:50:45 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/10/network-for-what-now/#comment-40 Sorry above post didn't show, I'm with Network for Good (www.networkforgood.org) and www.nonprofitmarketingblog.com Sorry above post didn’t show, I’m with Network for Good (www.networkforgood.org) and www.nonprofitmarketingblog.com

]]> by: Katya http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/10/network-for-what-now/#comment-39 Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:49:48 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/10/network-for-what-now/#comment-39 Hi, thanks for posting on this. A couple of things -- we cost more than PayPal for nonprofits because we do several things that nonprofits don't. First, we register in every state that requires nonprofit registration for online fundraising. The nonprofits appreciate this because when they use our system, they don't have to file with each state attorney general's office - we do it for them. A nonprofit can't use PayPal unless they register themselves in states their donors are based in. Second, we issue tax receipts after each donation to the donor and track for every nonprofit the donations through our system so they can thank and cultivate donors. We also store each donor's giving records so they can access them any time and print tax receipts as needed. This is why it costs more for us to process donations than it does for PayPal. Last, unlike JustGive, we don't ask for a donation to Network for Good as part of your transaction. If you're a nonprofit, that's good because we're not confusing your donors with additional solicitations. And last - we let donors ADD the fee to the donation if they want. Most do, so most nonprofits actually pay less then 3% when they use our system. Please be assured, we DO NOT profit from our fees - they are used to cover all that I just described. Sorry this is long, just wanted to explain our system and encourage further discussion. All best. Hi, thanks for posting on this. A couple of things — we cost more than PayPal for nonprofits because we do several things that nonprofits don’t. First, we register in every state that requires nonprofit registration for online fundraising. The nonprofits appreciate this because when they use our system, they don’t have to file with each state attorney general’s office - we do it for them. A nonprofit can’t use PayPal unless they register themselves in states their donors are based in. Second, we issue tax receipts after each donation to the donor and track for every nonprofit the donations through our system so they can thank and cultivate donors. We also store each donor’s giving records so they can access them any time and print tax receipts as needed. This is why it costs more for us to process donations than it does for PayPal. Last, unlike JustGive, we don’t ask for a donation to Network for Good as part of your transaction. If you’re a nonprofit, that’s good because we’re not confusing your donors with additional solicitations. And last - we let donors ADD the fee to the donation if they want. Most do, so most nonprofits actually pay less then 3% when they use our system. Please be assured, we DO NOT profit from our fees - they are used to cover all that I just described. Sorry this is long, just wanted to explain our system and encourage further discussion. All best.

]]>