Thanks to Twitter, I just landed on Shel Israel’s blog about social networks, Global Neighbourhoods. I happen to think Mr. Israel - and his counterpart, Robert Scoble, is rather brilliant, after reading on two separate occastions for two separate classes his book “Naked Conversations: How Blogs are Changing the Way Businesses Talk with Customers.” 

In a nutshell, these two published a book in 2006 clearly articulating how the Internet has leveled the communications playing field, changing the coversation between businesses and customers/clients from a one-way, paternalistic lecture to a two-way transparent conversation. People out there in the InterWebs can host their own blogs, like this one you read right now, where they air issues and publish their thoughts and opinions, have conversations with strangers and share information at a rapid, no-holds barred pace. Businesses should to two things, Scoble and Israel poist: 1. Pay attention to the blogs out there that comment on their company and industry and engage in the conversation and 2. Erect their own blogs where company leaders/influencers can speak openly in a personal, non-PR manner to connect with customers in a “real” way.

So I just read a post on Israel’s blog, and it’s fascinating: Comcast has staffers on a “team that scans social media and responds quickly to customer complaints with offers to help.” The blog post is about a guy whose beat is Twitter. Revolutionary!

Apparently this is old news, but its new to me, and I am fascinated to find out that a behemoth corporation like Comcast is devoting staff time to monitoring and engaging social media like Twitter.  Will find out more on this one…

I work at a monolithic non-profit, where we really are eradicating disease, educating future leaders, saving lives millions at a time, and making the world a better place. Really. This December we will wrap up a remarkably successful fundraising campaign that is on pace to exceed $3.5 billion.

I also work, on a volunteer or academic basis, with smaller non-profits that lack the super-power reputation and the tradition of giving within an established constituency. This summer one organization struggled to raise just a few thousand dollars, falling short of our goal and leaving many discouraged. The main problem was a lack of articulated need, as well as an unmotivated core of individuals tasked with making the asks despite being given communications assets and talking points.

Looking back, I see that the smaller organization’s micro-campaign might have benefited from the same principles that guide the strategy behind the larger organization’s. As an article, “Changing the World: Why its important for all fund-raising campaigns to follow the lead of the big ones and stress results, not need,” said:

Wage a billion-dollar campaign, and the campaign is about the message, and what philanthropy can do for you. Wage a small campaign, and the campaign is about the money, and what that money can do for us.

Interesting point. And not one I would have applied, despite my background in development communications. But I can see how that strategy would be effective. Our goals as a small arts organization aren’t, really, any less important than those of the larger institution. We have a lot of work to do to get to the same level, but there’s no reason why we shouldn’t position our goals and accomplishments with the same strategy.

The non-profit for which I’ve worked for the past three years has struggled to launch an addendum to our Web site that promotes the impact of philanthropy and conveys our need. There’s a million reasons, but one big one is that we never took the time or resources to identify what our constituents might seek in a development-centric Web site. Wht would they even need one, and what would people use it for? We are still trying to figure that out (and starting to make headway, thanks to a consulting company that sees dollar signs but also is willing to push us forward.) While thinking about that, I found a blog post on “Zen and the Art of Non-Profit Technology,” that puts together, simply, a list of mistakes non-profits tend to make on the Web. The list promotes the need for transparency, and warns Web sites not to over promise, because failure to deliver is the death of a Web site.

It’s a good guideline to keep at top of mind when developing Internet strategy for any organization, non-profit or not.

Today, after approving Melinda’s comment on the post about the Merril College of Journalism’s failure to put up an online giving form as promised, I checked the site. Still not up - a month after I first checked and saw that it would be there “this week.”

So, being the engaged alum and development professional that I am, I wrote an e-mail to the college’s development director. I tried to be kind - “I hate to be a pest, but I want to make a gift to get my name on the wall, and with this being my line of work, too, and my heart being vested in the success of the College, I find the situation troubling.” - but the truth is, if I was working like that here, I would be in hot water.  Like, scarringly hot water (Maybe that’s why we raise three-quarters of a billion dollars a year, easy). One of the basic tenets of this sort of development is that you never, ever put up any roadblock that could stop someone from making a gift, and you spend a lot of time guessing what could possibly be a roadblock. This one, however, was pretty basic. If I can’t access the online form, I’m not going to give.

She responded right away, quite kindly, promising to have the site up by the end of the day. In about three hours, there it was. So, of course, I had to make my gift, and I did.

For my class this semester, Internet Strategies, we are tasked with building a campaign to raise money online using a real organization as an example. Maybe I will use the Knight Hall campaign for the project.

My four years at the University of Maryland were rich, and, now that I find myself in a personal and professional place that is rewarding in so many ways, what isn’t credited to my family and friends goes to my college education. The list is long, but one of the treasures I took away was a degree in journalism that landed me one of the industry’s most sought-after jobs, the first stop on a path that took me on a wild adventure.

So when the Philip Merrill College of Journalism came knocking with a glossy and gorgeous -if flawed - pitch for the college’s new home, Knight Hall, I was ready to open my wallet. Now I’m not endowing a chair or anything, but I understand the impact of philanthropy and would like to make a meaningful commitment to the place that gave me so much.

In addition to offering a mail-back pledge form, the brochure tells me that I can save a stamp by giving online. Of course! Brilliant! Simple, and easy for me to do immediately at the moment when I feel most engaged and ready to act. What do I find at www.knighthall.umd.edu/give?

“The customized giving form for the building campaign will be online later this week. In the meantime, please use the University’s online giving page to make your donation.”

And there, I am blocked, no longer interested in making my gift.

I am only critical of this effort because I care about this school and want nothing but to see its success. But this basic-level appeal is flawed in so many ways, ignoring general tenets of Web usability practice in conjunction with this level of fundraising.

First, why would the school send out a brochure that apparently took a significant amount of time and money before the online giving form is ready? Fixing that e-form should take very little effort. The school looks very disorganized and incompetent with this minor failure, but if I’m considering giving them my money and, at that very moment, am prepared to do so, I’m less likely to do so if it’s not easy to use the tool and if the potential steward of my money seems to not have it together.

Second, when I click on the University’s giving page, I am overwhelmed by the e-form copy, and annoyed that I have to remember what they tell me is the jargony “appeal code” -PTYA8. As a potential donor, I am quickly turned off by these extra arduous steps that are asked of me.

Of course, I have only the highest hopes for this effort. But as a steward of the college’s name, I think we need to do be doing better from the outset to ensure success.

A few months or two ago, I heard about a new blog launched by an old acquaintence from The Philly Years with a keen sense for the ironic. I ignored it because I was drowning in Media Theory, and while I was thinking about agenda-setting, everyone else was reading Postcards From Yo Momma.

So funny. A great commentary on how women grapple with their evolving role as children grow into adults, and wise insight into how people adapt to technology and changes in communication habits.

My mom hasn’t yet picked up on e-mail except for sending forwards about “Christian Ways to Reduce Stress,” but I do have some great material for Postcards From Yo Pop, such as this gem sent right about when I was deciding to purchase real estate:

Nora,

Good to hear from you. I’m in Eastern Europe, still in the Communist empire. Does JHU have any positions overseas? It is a big world out there where the U.S. plays an insignificant role despite the insular attitudes rendered within its borders. You ought to see some of it before you become trapped by posessions and obligations.

Love,
Steve

Thanks, Dad - er, I mean, Steve! By the way, I think he’s right, it’s just a funny e-mail.

We all know journalism is changing, and top-of-mind for many journalists or, uh, students of communication is the widening mediascape and emergence of public journalism.

Reading about it is one thing, but today we witness a prime example.

Ed Frawley was outraged: after his solider son returned from a 15-month deployment in Afghanistan, the Army sent him to live in barracks that were moldy, rusty, and pumped full of sewer gas.  The Army had promised brand-new barracks in Fort Bragg, N.C.; instead, they were sent back to live in a place that kinda looks like a run-down frat house at Maryland.

What would you do? Grumble about it to friends and family, curse the politicians who let it get this way, maybe pledge to vote Democrat in November? Maybe write a few letters to congressmen and even the paper?

Ed took his argument to the world, posting a thoughtful, logical video on YouTube that narrates a set of photos depicting his son’s deployment and return to baselife. The video went up on April 22; by 6 p.m. on April 28, the video has been viewed 47,308 times, according to the YouTube site.

Ed got a call from a big-shot at the Army - actually, Chief of Staff Gen. Dick Cody - sharing his sentiment and promising action. The story got picked up by CNN and other news outlets.

Here’s a prime example of participatory journalism (a.k.a. the cringe-worthy and excluding “citizen journalism“), where technology empowered someone to broadcast an issue to a wide audience, quickly and easily. It caught the attention of the people who needed to hear this message and elicited a response, probably buyoed by the viral explosion of something as simple yet powerful as a YouTube video. Ed was successful because his argument is clear, concise, and logical and backed up by evidence.

The future of journalism and the value of these user-generated content tools like blogs and YouTube is a constant conversation in the mass media world. Here’s an example of how a personal story, combined with powerful tools, could become journalism and make a difference in the world.

I’ve spent the past few weeks talking to big thinkers about the implications of exploding digital media and the shift in news consumption habits on the theory of a public agenda, and trying to have a few big thoughts of my own. A bitter ex-reporter, I’ve been skeptical of the value of this fragmentation of media and the validity of much, if any, of this “public journalism.” But today I bite my tongue and clearly see how this new media trend is an absolutely positive shift for journalism and for a democratic society.

One day soon, norakoch.com will be reborn as an expert source for calculating emotrics and creating facehooks. Check out this (humorous) list of Web 3.0 buzzwords.

Bred on AIM conversations and cell-phone obsession, the digital generation stands on a social constitution of independence – yet interdependence, collaboration – yet personal responsibility, and participation – yet privacy. As Tapscott and Williams establish early in their book, “Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything,” this new approach to communicating, socializing, and working is based on openness, peering, sharing, and acting globally – the tenets of the new wikinomics.

And as this generation matures into leaders of community and industry, this constitution follows. The principles of wikinomics are integrating into the new business world. Web 2.0, with its user-generated transparency, has forced businesses to adapt to a world where secrets aren’t secret and, as Scoble and Israel posited, showing a vulnerable and flawed public face can be an asset for a business, in that vulnerabilities and flaws reflect reality and genuineness. In the digital age, companies that experience success will embrace new technology and the interactive, wikinomical approach to business.

In the second half of the Wikinomics book, Tapscott and Williams consider how this new culture will affect the workplace, opining that wikinomics have forced significant change in the culture, process, structure, and economics of work. This generation was raised on communication and collaboration, born of the Web, and brings creativity, independence, diversity, and technology as employees. They also expect the same of their employers. Good work happens through collaboration, evidenced in Tapscott’s and Williams’ Geek Squad example, and the Web and Web 2.0 applications can foster collaboration even when employees are separated by great geographic distance. The authors declare that these new technologies allow for virtual work teams and work places, and allow employees to engage with colleagues around the world, with fewer hassles and more valuable collaboration experiences. Some companies are even completely virtual.

This generation wants to collaborate. We want to be empowered by a trusting employer, and no longer seek out a patriarchal employer who will take care of us into old age in exchange for a lifetime of workerbee loyalty. But such trust requires, even more so, clear goals, structure, and discipline from the employer.

Tapscott and Williams believe that consultancy will be the “dominant contractual model” for work, allowing for more freedom in the worklife and more entrepreneurs.

Wikinomics and this independent, constantly connected young workforce has led to the birth of the “Location Independent Professional” – a principle of work and life that, because of the Web and Web 2.0, as well as that cell phone and instant-messaging addiction honed as teenagers, allows professionals to live and work from wherever they choose. As one individual wrote, the traditional worklife clashed with the life and values he sought:

“… I became institutionalised. My daily working life was run by someone else. Decisions that shaped my future were not made by me and I was deluding myself that I was in control…”

Web 2.0 and wikinomics allows workers to live the life they choose. New technology allows us to perform duties no matter where we are in the world, collaborating with colleagues, and communicating as needed. All you need to work is a computer with an internet connection and, perhaps, a telephone. This new technology has allowed us to escape the tradition of being beholden to the patriarchal employer, empowering us with the collaborative and free nature of the digital age.

And this kind of empowerment is what this generation needs to thrive. Whether working from a beach in Thailand or the suburbs of Virginia, the trust and collaboration that comes from the virtual office or location-independent consultancy will allow workers to feel confident and charged with the task of the highest quality work. We want to contribute to industry and business, but, as latchkey kids, we also want to balance out quality of life, too. Wikinomics make that possible.

Check out Johns Hopkins’ new commerical, airing for the first time on ESPNU this weekend during the JHU-Duke matchup at 6:00 p.m.  

The message is clever and the design first-rate, but what I’m most excited about is the university’s first steps into the digital age and full integration. Along with the commercial, the project includes a Web site that mimics film sites with links to Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube, as well as a radio spot and a blog. Way to go, JHU!