This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
online Sarah Beauchamp ‘A Real-Time Megaphone’


The 2012 Nonprofit Social Networking Benchmark Report offers valuable insights into how meeting professionals can manage social media, maximizing the impact of live events.


T


his year, nonprofit professionals from all over North America answered an online survey about


how their organizations use social media. They represented a wide range of groups, from small volunteer-led arts organizations to large multinational trade associations. The results were compiled by NTEN, Common Knowl- edge, and Blackbaud — organizations dedicated to helping nonprofit growth through technology — and recently presented in the 4th Annual Nonprofit Social Networking Benchmark Report, showcasing insights about social net- working for nonprofits and businesses serving the nonprofit sector. The report shows the vast and high-


impact ways in which companies and associations can navigate — and turn a profit in — the new social-networking frontier. It confirms that social net- working continues to grow in impor- tance, and that the leading social sites are extending their dominance. But what does that mean specifically


for meeting professionals? We spoke with the people who compiled and analyzed the results, allowing them to extrapolate on how the evolution of social networking factors into face-to- face meetings and events:


› Holly Ross Events director at NTEN, a membership organization of nonprofit professionals, helping them use technology to aid their cause and extend their message. › Jeff Patrick President and founder of Common Knowledge, a consultant agency helping nonprofits establish and enhance their online marketing and fundraising strategies.


36 PCMA CONVENE AUGUST 2012


Tweet Up Twitter usage among nonprofits is up 80 percent over last year, says NTEN’s Holly Ross.


What were some surprising results of the study?


Holly Ross We were surprised, but happy, to see that smaller-sized organizations, specifically those with budget sizes less than $5 million, were not only using social media at similar adoption rates as larger organizations, but also investing staff resources towards deploying and monitoring these tools. While everyone has long touted the level-playing-field theory about social media for smaller organizations, we were pleased to see the data show that it’s happening.


Jeff Patrick I was a bit surprised to see the average cost of a Facebook Like ($3.50) and Twitter follower ($2.05). Anecdotally from our own clients, we know that getting new Likes and followers can be quite cost-effective. I was surprised and happy to see that nonprofits were confirming this idea. About 10 percent of the total 3,200 survey respondents answered this question. So, obviously not all organizations are in this range, but among those who are doing it (and


measuring it), we have the basis for some initial discussion.


What evolution did you see in social- networking site usage relating to live events?


HR We saw a huge increase in Twitter community size among survey respondents — about an 80-percent increase in average followers compared to our 2011 findings. Facebook is still growing, too, about a 30-percent increase in fans and Likes compared to 2011, but we were struck by the large increase in the size of Twitter communities. We think this has special implica- tions for organizations using Twitter as part of their event-engagement toolset. Twitter is a great tool for events, allowing attendees to keep up with key announcements from the organiza- tion about what’s happening, to keep up with each other when using event hashtags, and to share information with audiences outside of the event. This is great for general community engage- ment and driving buzz around your events. The growth here suggests that organizations can, and perhaps should,


PCMA.ORG


ILLUSTRATIONS BY BECI ORPIN / THE JACKY WINTER GROUP


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116