My Photo

About Beth Kanter

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Beth's Blog: Channels, Screencasts, and Videos

Awards, Nominations, and Board Memberships

May 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          


Site Tracking

  • This is my Google PageRankā„¢ - SmE Rank free service Powered by Scriptme

« Spell My Twitter User Name Correctly! @kanter | Main | Thank you ChelPixie for your support of the Sharing Foundation! »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Joanne Fritz

Thanks, Beth, for these charts. I particularly like the latter two...the first one is a bit too academic (of course that is where you got it so...). The other two are understandable and pragmatic. You are great at finding helpful info.

Amy Sample Ward

One thing that comes to mind when digesting your questions about competition fundraising is to compare the AGC/Causes to Komen's Race for the Cure online fundraising that they started a few years ago for participants to raise additional funds for the cause, and the online fundraising for walk-a-thons (Relay-for-Life).

Michael Weiksner

Beth, thanks for the summary of our research. In my opinion, 'Causes' fits the 'self-expression' pattern. Causes has a database of non-profit logos that look nice on your profile page. I think that Causes, like many applications, tries to incorporate competition to increase engagement. The end-of-year campaign was a great example of this.

Joanne, you are right that the analysis was intended to be 'academic.' Still, I hope the research is helpful to practictioners who want to create their own facebook applications. As our class at Stanford demonstrated, these patterns can be learned and replicated!

(Note: the third author is spelled 'Xingxin Liu'.)


Hi Beth . . . this excelent post caught my attention . . . when we were working on the open innovation exchange we came up with a 'spiral' of engagement to understand online communities. Not a ladder. This takes into account that engagement isn't in fact a linear process but people's level of engagement waxes and wanes according to 'interest', 'need' and/or 'commitment' at any particular time. I offer the following: and

So to influence 'engagement' you have to understand what makes people move around the spiral (or up the ladder) AND what influences the 'waxing' and 'waning' process. Complicated!

The comments to this entry are closed.