The FCC is Coming After YOUR Nonprofit!

I'm not sure how closely any of you have been following the legal battles over "net neutrality" but the FCC has issued new (draft) rules that would effectively kill it (along with the ability of most nonprofits to use the web as an inexpensive communications strategy), all while wrapping itself up in the language of net neutrality.

Net neutrality is the concept that all content traffic on the web should be treated equally, and that ISPs (the companies you purchase your internet access from, like Comcast, Verizon, etc.) can't pick and choose which content you access (as long as it's legal), or send you one website at a quicker download speed than another.

Net neutrality is why your website should load in a browser at the same speed as Facebook (taking into account that large photos or videos take longer than text). Net neutrality is how start-ups compete with the established net giants, like Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and Amazon. Net neutrality is the even playing field that gives all information and ideas a fair chance at finding an audience.

The new proposed rules from the FCC would allow ISPs to set up "fast lanes" for those content providers who can pay them the extra fees (the established net biggies), and put all other internet traffic into the slow lane, stifling conversation and innovation along with it.

Guess which lane most nonprofits will find themselves in (unless we each find a generous benefactor who will pay off all the ISPs for us)?

Bottom line for nonprofits: If this proposal is accepted, and these rules go into effect, it could be much harder (and much more expensive) for us to communicate with the public about our missions and the good work we do. If our sites load at 1996 speeds, donors, volunteers, and others interested in learning about our missions will not be very motivated to stick with us long enough for our homepage to load.

Here's a great article that explains what's happening, and what the dangers are (click here).

And here's a petition that you may sign onto (click here).

Remember, as nonprofits you have to be careful about endorsing particular candidates and parties, but you are allowed to inform, educate, and take part in public policy debates that effect your mission or your ability to do your work.

(NOTE: The final language of the proposed rules will be released at the FCC meeting on May 15. That will begin the official public comment period before the rules are formally adopted. Public comment will be at least 30 days, likely longer. Petitions and letters now are still helpful and may influence the draft that is coming on May 15.)

The future of online fundraising

I received an email from a college student asking if he could interview me about ePhilanthropy and the future of online fundraising.

The questions gave me an opportunity to think creatively about the application of some web 2.0 concepts, such as tagging and feeds, and how they can improve our practices.

His questions and my answers follow. Let me know what you think...

> * How did Internet change the way nonprofits fundraise?

Maybe a better question would be, "HAS the Internet changed the way nonprofits fundraise?" Because for a lot of organizations, it still hasn't.

There are certainly plenty of new tools, but most nonprofits (outside of universities and hospitals) are traditionally very slow to adopt new technologies. This is for a few reasons, including: budget, being "people focused," lack of staff/resources, and budget (did I mention budget?).

Still, for those organizations that are on the ball, technically speaking, it has broadened their tools for appeals. The most obvious direct items are "Donate Now" buttons (either their own or using an ASP) and email. The less direct way is using the 'net for promotion, communications, and visibility.

Email can be used for a direct appeal, or for newsletters with indirect asks. But, again, limited budget and staff to implement these has kept most smaller and medium sized organizations from fully realizing the potential benefit of these tools.

I mention budget a lot. Email is cheap to use, and scales cheaply, but can be costly to implement effectively (opt-in systems to avoid spamming, software or ASP's beyond the basic MS Outlook, and the staff to actually manage lists and write the messages).

> * Is traditional fundraising still part of the fundraising mix?

Most definitely so. For the reasons listed above (slow implementation, budget, etc.), but also because of human nature.

While online tools are fabulous for meeting new donors, and younger donors, there is nothing that can ever compare to the personal touch of the in-person ask.

Even snail mail has a place, as it's far easier to make an emotional connection with a photo you can hold in your hand than with an email that may or may not properly display images based on the user's software settings and operating system.

In the area of Foundation grants, the worlds are merging somewhat as more and more Foundations accept online applications. It is traditional fundraising in terms of the skills required for completing the applications, but they are adapted to the online world.

For that matter, you could say that all online fundraising is just an adaptation of traditional methods. It's the medium that has changed - or expanded - not the message or the appeal.

> * The future of online fundraising?

More effective integration of cause and effect using tags and feeds. For example, it's entirely feasible for a news website to automatically match stories (IE: flood in India) to donation opportunities (IE: International Red Cross).

They do this now, manually, with major disasters. But with proper use of tagging, RSS, etc., it's entirely possible that even "minor" local stories (IE: car crash kills drunk driver) can automatically linked to local causes (IE: local United Way or MADD or AA chapter).

What I'm saying is really, technology gives us the opportunities to be more pro-active and less passive in our efforts. Rather than waiting for a potential supporter to come to our web site or sign up for our email newsletter, we will be able to find them based on what they're reading and hook directly into their online experience.

> * Why are many nonprofit are still waiting with their online fundraising?

Money, or the perception of no money. While many of these tools are low or even no cost (use of blogspot.com as a communications platform), they are loath to give even the impression that they are wasting resources.

Example: An organization I know of that was given very nice, high quality office chairs from a defunct dot-com. They were not allowed to use them because it gave the impression that they were extravagant. Many nonprofits live in this poverty mind-set.

Any assets must go to the clients. Anything that doesn't directly benefit them is seen as a waste. What they don't see is that a small investment in online tools will create a return that can be used for mission and services.

> * What will make a website a good ePhilanthropy site?

See "the future" question above. It's the integration of information and ask. Don't make the potential donor search for the means to give.

Have the opportunity linked directly into the inspiration. This is the answer.

The Temporality of Digital Knowledge and Copyright Bozos

Pam Ashlund of the Nonprofit Eye Blog has a new posting about "the Temporality of Digital Knowledge" - the notion that for all the wonderful online information we have at our fingertips, the idea that the Internet is a permanent repository of information is a false one. How many times have you gone to your bookmarks to find a particular reference and landed at a blank screen marked, "401 Error - page not found"?

Pam suggests downloading and saving the information you need, rather than rely on bookmarks or tags, but acknowledges the ethical problems regarding copyrights. She then calls for some sort of permanent solution to the problem of vanishing online data:

I'm not proposing new legislation here, but rather the quest for a solution. Maybe a volunteer effort to archive this fantastic, but vulnerable virtual library. It would be a shame to have to continually re-create the wheel every time a user gets tired of administering a website.

This is my battlecry - save our on-line nonprofit resources! Otherwise all the social bookmarking in the world won't matter.

I second her call, but also recognize the many legal and ethical issues involved in saving information that one does not "own."

I also found Pam's posting relevant in relation to a book I'm reading currently, called Freedom of Expression®: Overzealous Copyright Bozos and Other Enemies of Creativity by Kembrew McLeod (follow the title link for a free pdf download or instructions for ordering in print).

McLeod blames new, stronger copyright and patent laws for the death of creativity and a dangerous situation in such far-flung fields as agriculture and medicine. Drawing a line from Woody Guthrie's This Land is Your Land to the patenting of the human genome, McLeod argues that being able to build on another's work is central to the creative process. As Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen farther it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."

He doesn't argue against copyrights or patents, just the over-enforcement and extension of copyrights virtually forever. He refers often to the Constitution, and the founding fathers concept that copyrights were for a limited term to encourage and support creativity, but that eventually all knowledge and creativity would belong to "the commons" for the betterment of all mankind.

How this relates to Pam's dream project of a repository of nonprofit information will be clearer if you read some of McLeod's book, but it's a fascinating idea.

NOTE - I apologize for the irregular posting here as of late. Between holidays, personal health issues, and, of course, working it's not always possible to write posts that are up to the quality that I strive for. December may also be spotty, but I am not giving up on blogging. Please bear with me - thanks!