1.
How Network Orgs Are Re-
invigorating Change
Organizing 2.0/501 Tech NYC
May 2012

2.
About Communicopia
Who we are
About us
We are a boutique digital consultancy working globally
for change. We lead transformational digital projects
that help social mission organizations increase their
impact & effectiveness in a networked world.
Our clients
Include Human Rights Watch, NRDC, Net Impact, City
of Vancouver, the UN Foundation, The Elders, & the
TckTckTck global climate campaign. We also founded
the Web of Change community.

3.
We live in times of
massive systems change
The web & networks are
creating new models

4.
Audiences have tuned out

5.
Faith in institutions is at all time low

6.
Complex world. People see connections

7.
They expect more. Want to give more.

8.
Rapid growth of networked orgs

9.
Rise of “free agent” changemakers

10.
The web has changed advocacy comms

11.
Initial web = publishing

12.
Networked web = conversations

13.
The web past & present
Traditional Web Today’s Web

14.
Most institutions lack the
people, structure, & culture to
lead in this new world

15.
Networked Nonprofits
A term coined by Beth Kanter and Allison Fine
Simple & Transparent Orgs
Networked nonprofits are easy for outsiders to get
in and insiders to get out. They engage people to
shape and share their work.
They don’t work harder or longer than other orgs,
they work differently. They engage in
conversations with people beyond their walls to
build relationships that spread their work through
the network. Relationship building is a core
responsibility of staff. They are all comfortable
using social media to encourage two way
communications between people.

16.
Networked Nonprofits
Institutions born in a post-institutional age
Beth’s Three Attributes: Social culture. Transparency. Simplicity.
Other attributes:
•Smaller budget, less reliant on staff-driven model
•Focus on doing one thing well
•Hold back resources to jump on big opportunities
•People working there are ambidextrous + younger
•Listen well. Many are member-driven
•No barriers between “online” and “real world”

17.
How are they different?

18.
Traditional Nonprofits
Driven by policy, run by experts, focused on elites
Create & promote policy solutions
Find the right policy answers. Run a lot of long term
campaigns promoting or defending them.
Policy Expert based culture
Program / policy professionals drive the ship. The
“real work” of the institution. Senior leaders were
often wonks previously, not managers.
“Grass-tops” audiences
Communications & campaigns typically targeted at
senior decision makers or media.

19.
Traditional Nonprofits
Additional attributes
•Very silo’d structures: deputies compete for resources, disincentives
to collaborate, even turf wars
•Hierarchical, top down cultures: young/web ppl not asked
•Small donor fundraising drives “regular people” work & owns the
lists. Sometimes even runs parallel programs
•Typically very protective of & conservative with brand
•Incentive to always promote their own experts/reports/wins, acting
somewhat narcissistically
•Often work in isolation, or in cumbersome coalitions

20.
Nonprofits & Online
People are a means to an end
Online = List Building: We run campaigns to grow our lists, ask for
simple online actions, & convert activists to donors.
Online programs are often made up of:
•Email lists bought from big providers
•Facebook friends gained via advertising
•Cookie cutter, endless online “crisis” actions. Clicktivism
•No personalized communications; no engagement ladders (no
programs to support higher engagement)
•Don’t know what supporters care about; don’t ask

21.
Online is a faux grassroots strategy

22.
NGO’s struggle with digital
It’s not about “pounding the list”
Online is separate: Run within one silo, it struggles to keep up with
publishing demands, much less drive new campaign models based
on engagement
Other challenges:
•Dept that does “real world” is separate from “online”
•Online lives in communications, driven by content needs
•Communications is under-invested in across the sector
•Culturally, staff built careers being experts, being perfect, being
professional, being the best, having control

23.
Network orgs are built around a
high
engagement model.

24.
Network Orgs
People lie at the core of their Theory of Change
Social culture
Co-create or improve solutions along with partners &
people outside their walls.
People Transparent model
Openly share theory of change. Comfortable with
emergence, testing, & learning in public.
Simple focus
A clear goal and limited program areas. Also stronger
investment in comms, messaging, UX.

25.
The model suits our times
Maybe we centralized too much social change in NGO’s
Model maps directly to web values: More conversational style. Meets
people on their terms. Enables self-organizing systems. Offers
meaningful participation.
Other benefits:
•Complex world, difficult issues take many players
•Can stretch fewer resources a long way
•Engages talents locked up in our communities
•Can turn on a dime; focus big attention on opportunities
•Innovation doesn’t always come from experts; front lines

26.
The limits of network orgs
Small isn’t always beautiful
Not a panacea: Network orgs often lack the scale, reach, or capacity
to really drive an agenda that doesn’t already exist
Other limits:
•Don’t do the grinding, long term policy framework work; don’t have
experts to do it
•Can be seen as “ambulance chasers”
•Hard to have impact without large scale of community
•Difficult to fund; don’t fit into existing models
•What is the sustainable business model?

27.
Lets look at some stories.

28.
Let’s stay connected
Thanks for listening. I also ramble here:
Jason Mogus Communicopia
@mogusmoves communicopia.com
twitter.com/communicopia
facebook.com/communicopia