Michelle Murrain who writes the Zen of the Art of Technology Blog is known for her astute observations about nonprofit technology strategic and technical issues. She recently blogged about her take on social networking has changed in the past year and now recommends to clients that they should consider what value they can gain from a social networking presence.
What has happened is basically a sea change in the landscape. Not only are Gen Y and Millenials engaged in these social networks, but a wider and broader range of people are. It’s fairly clear to me that going forward, increasingly, social networks are a major way people are interacting on the web - and nonprofits need to understand how to engage their constituents given those changing realities.
Michelle is one of many great minds sharing their knowledge in the WeAreMedia project. But there are other participants, like Michael Wesolowski who joined the wiki and messaged me in Facebook telling me he had joined the project with the hope that some of the community's expertise would rub off on him. I asked him if had a specific learning goal? He responded:
My learning goals are to become more aware of the social networks that are out there and how they work together and how to explain Facebook to a Board who may not be familiar with it. I also want to improve our strategy on Facebook. This is part of my job and my organization has allocated 10 hours per week for me to work on strategy.
(As an aside, one of the best resources to explain Social Networks to people who are new to them is Lee LeFever's videos. The one on social networks is great for beginners.)
I asked him share some background about what his organization, MHAUS (Malignant Hyperthermia Association of the US) was already doing on Facebook . His organization has a Cause and Group. They set up the Cause with the goal of fundraising, but quickly discovered that it was better for spreading awareness of his organization. The Cause has 133 members and raised $135.
"After our initial experiment, it became VERY clear that FB is an important way to connect with malignant hyperthermia susceptible people (MHS), and their family, friends, doctors and care providers; in a way UNLIKE any other. Dialogue with FB Friends is of course priceless."
Conversations on Facebook have been an important channel of information. Michael has been focusing on doing outreach on Facebook:
I have been building relationships with the other group administrators, and regularly participate in some 47 medical groups. I have been sending personal message to each new member and regularly send follow up messages and additional information. In fact doctors abroad have been asking regular questions. We are averaging a new member every day.
To facilitate the conversations, they need to keep the content on the Cause and Group pages fresh. The other objective is to convert FB friends over time into being individual donors and get them into the organization's main CRM.
Like many nonprofits, The Malignant Hyperthermia Group Page was created by an MHAUS supporter who later made Michael, a staff person, an administrator. The group has 44 members and there are active wall postings. The group page was started before there was a Fan Page option. Michael's questions are:
- Given that we want to maintain conversations with patients, doctors, and supporters via Facebook and that need to keep our content on Facebook updated, what are the advantages of a Fan Page versus a Group? Has anyone closed up their group and moved to a Fan Page? Tips?
- What are the pros/cons of groups versus Fan Pages?
- What is the best way to leverage the relationships we're building for fundraising?
What's your advice?
This post is really interesting, because when I decided to put The Women's Museum on Facebook, the only thing I really considered was making a Fan Page, not a group. This may be in part because of my personal experience using Facebook - groups seem to be more transient, and I think Fan Pages have a lot of the features of groups, but with a different membership function.
Fan pages let someone become a "Fan" without being a member, so depending on your organization, one may fit your needs better. Being a Museum, our "members" are something different than our "fans", and we want to keep those separate.
I would stay with whatever method you're currently using. Moving from one form to the other could cost you users.
Posted by: Alyssa | August 14, 2008 at 01:59 PM
When I created the CSO fan page, I looked at both options, group or fan page, but came to the conclusion that the fan page has a much more official feel to it and the options, especially with apps, seemed much broader. Fan pages also give you great statistics about who the fans are, age groups and male/female ratio etc. and how many visitors you get.
I personally feel that Fan Pages have a lower entry barrier than a Group. It seems people are more inclined to just become a fan than a group member.
But a group can definitely serve its purpose. Maybe you can have one Fan Page and several groups for side projects, exhibits or programs.
Posted by: Marc | August 15, 2008 at 08:40 AM
I have been in charge of growing a Facebook presence for Tamarack – An Institute for Community Engagement, a small non-profit.
Pages or Groups? While this seems like the question at hand, the more important first question you and your organization should be asking is what do you want to get out of your space and presence on Facebook and what do you hope to achieve in the end?
One blog sums it up in a concise yet very accurate manner, Tim writes which choice he would go with based on a certain situation:
"Pages - if I wanted a long-term public record of the dialogue, and wanted to engage young people via Facebook over the longer term
Groups - if I wanted to quickly host a discussion with those already on Facebook, but without building a presence on Facebook right now."
http://www.timdavies.org.uk/2008/02/18/facebook-groups-vs-facebook-pages
Posted by: Mike | August 15, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Thanks for the input.
The Group & Fan pages sound so similar, the differences seem to be no-login access to the fan page, and that it offers statistics; which I wish was offered throughout FB properties and Apps.
How does your pages fit into your overall communications strategy?
Posted by: Michael Wesolowski | August 15, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Hmmm... I thought I heard somewhere that there's a difference in how you can communicate with your fans/followers between groups and pages; that is, one way you can only communicate with so many people in the group at one time, and the other you can communicate with all "fans" at once. Does that sound right to anyone else, or am I just making things up? : )
Posted by: Erin | August 15, 2008 at 12:08 PM
I agree with all of you about Goal and Objectives, and that having a clear understanding of a project is Key. Without goals and objectives, to quote Zig Ziggler, “you are either a wandering generality or a meaningful specific.” But the anatomy of a project also contains target audience, concept development, implementation, and results analysis.
For me implementation has been particularly challenging. Lots more is being written about web 2.0 than how-to. Learning about 101 issues, language details and nuances of web 2.0 before jumping into my Facebook project has been challenging, in addition to how the pieces-parts Velcro together.
Posted by: michaelwesolowski | August 17, 2008 at 04:33 AM
I found this article which I thought was a good explanation of the reasons to use pages versus groups.
With groups you can be more viral because everyone in the group can send bulk invites to their friends to join the group. I've noticed that several organizations use both pages and groups. For example WGBH uses pages and also has a volunteer group. Whereas the page may be the main face of the org you could have multiple groups each with specific purposes and contituencies - the Junior Board, volunteers, etc...
Posted by: Betsy Harman | February 04, 2009 at 04:05 PM