What are Foundations Tweeting?
About three weeks ago, the 411 Philanthropy Blog created a mega list of 90 Foundations that Tweet (and it is still growing.) I threw the urls into a google spreadsheet and started to browse the Twitter streams to get a better understanding of the content shared. (It wasn't useless babble!)
In an earlier post, I found the following types of patterns related to content shared on Twitter.
- Share history (Detroit Foundation)
- Talk vision and mission (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation)
- Share important research (Kauffman Foundation) (Hewlett Foundation)
- Retweet useful links shared by colleagues (Greater Cincinnati Foundation)
- Recruit job candidates (MacArthur Foundation)
- Important program deadlines (Hawaii Community Foundation)
- Reveal field insights (Columbus Foundation) (Case Foundation)
- Recognize employees or fellows (Kellogg Foundation)
- Profile grantee success or support their efforts (CF Community Foundation)
- Be responsive (Skoll Foundation)
- Ask questions about the future (Cleveland Foundation)
- Answer questions about the future (Knight Foundation)
What Voice Are They Using?
At the Packard Foundation, I've had the opportunity to participate in a couple of social media strategy and philosophy development sessions. One of the issues that they are thinking about as related to strategy (and policy guidelines) is the Personal VS Organizational. It's a common area of discussion for nonprofits, foundations, and corporations.
The next step was look at the Twitter profiles. The 90 Foundations that Tweet breaks it down into Foundation versus Individual. Yesterday, I was reading Jeremiah Owyang's Corporate Twitter Profile Analysis and thought it could be easily adapted to nonprofits and foundations.
1) Pure Foundation Brand
100% branded with primarily Foundation related content. These accounts, which are often sporting the logo and name of the Foundation are used to provide news, grants information, and information resources like research studies, job announcements. There is no indicator of any individuals involved. Many of the examples on the 90 Foundations that Tweet seem to approach Twitter in this way.
Example: CS Mott Foundation
Pros: This account can be managed by a team, could be set up to automatically stream content. There is d less risk of an individual being co-branded with the Foundation and potentially violating a policy, going off message, etc.
Cons: This may be perceived as a just an extension of Communications, PR or the Foundation website with little human interaction.
2) Foundation With Personality
Estimated with about 80% foundation brand and 20% personal/professional brand this account may be a branded account, although it’s clear there’s an individual participating. The content stream is more interactive with conversations happening between the Foundation and "followers."
Example: Cleveland Foundation says in the profile "Tweets by Tara" who is in the communications a department.
Pros: This account maintains the face of the Foundation brand, yet shows a human element, building trust with the community.
Cons: The account may be limiting itself as the community may come to expect and rely on the individual person to participate or may have difficulty scaling if it is only one person.
3) Employee With Foundation Association
In a rough estimate this account consists of 20% corporate related content, and approximately 80% personal information. The personal information more "professional" in that it relates to the individuals subject matter expertise.
These are accounts that are individuals and don’t “officially” or “formally” represent the foundation, but they don’t hide the fact that they’re an employee of the Foundation.
Example: Stephanie McAuliffe
Pros: These personal accounts are often organic and are a great way to build connections with a community.
Cons: Even if a disclaimer states that “these opinions only represent me, not my employer” they still are representatives of the brand. When it comes to issues like lobbying, there may be legal issues.
4) Pure Personal Account
These accounts are 100% personal content and have no tie or mention of foundation or branded information. These personal accounts, either created by an individual that doesn’t want to be associated with their employer –or their employer won’t let them is void of any corporate ties.
Example: Tiffany Thomas Smith
Pros: This account has no tie or risk to a brand.
Cons: Although the risks are reduced, so are the opportunities. The chance to spread thought leadership is lost
What profile is the "right" way to go? What type of content should you share? There are no definitive answers. These decisions have to reflect the organization's Internet communications objectives and social media strategy. Also, the decisions need to reflect internal discussions around philosophy, policy and guidelines for social media use.
Your thoughts?
Wow, Beth - this is FABULOUS! What a great use of the data from 90 Foundations That Tweet. Thanks for putting this together (I'm sure it was a lot of work!). Very interesting and useful. -- Kris Putnam-Walkerly, Author of Philanthropy411 Blog and President, Putnam Community Investment Consulting
Posted by: Kris Putnam-Walkerly | August 14, 2009 at 06:35 AM
Thanks Beth, for the very informative blog post.
Despite the large number of Foundations and grantees currently on Twitter, I feel that there is a lack of community and conversation taking place amongst them. In general, I don't think many of the Foundations are tweeting and using #hashtags enough - especially the big players.
I think community and conversation will increase with the creation and standardization of specific #hashtags (e.g. #hashtags for common Foundation program areas - environment, performing arts, etc.). This would help filter the already existing inundated #hashtags like #nonprofits and #philanthropy, and make tweets by Foundations serving more than one philanthropic interest more relevant and useful.
In addition, #hashtags may help solve the personal vs. organizational issue since they filter tweets by topic of interest. As a result, more attention is put on the program/topic of interest and less attention is put on the Foundation and individual - that's actually how it should be in this industry right?
Perhaps in a subsequent, but related post you could suggest a healthy list of #hashtags that every Foundation should be using in their tweets?
Posted by: Nathaniel Nakashima | August 14, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Thanks Beth -- what a great analysis.
I love the list of #hashtags idea and pledge to use them more if someone compiles and posts! Also, it might be useful to broaden the category to philanthropic orgs/philanthropists that tweet, and not just be limited to foundations.
Posted by: @vppartners Victoria Vrana | August 14, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Great post, Beth. I'm not with a foundation, so it's easy for me to suggest my preference. Just seems that there's so much more to gain if the person Tweeting on behalf of his or her foundation did it as that person. I want to feel a connection to the person giving and receiving information. Doesn't quite feel the same talking or listening to a logo.
Posted by: Bruce Trachtenberg | August 14, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Great analysis, Beth, thank you.
Another interesting slice would be a look at the 'wizard behind the curtain' to categorize who (functional role or level within organization) is actually Tweeting for each strategy. I suspect that strategy #1 (pure foundation brand) is driven by "communications", not "programs". At IdeaEncore Network, we've found the most powerful and interesting sharing across nonprofits occurs between the people in programmatic roles. I suspect if initial successes are documented, that evolution will lead to broader usage within other departments. A snapshot would help validate (or not) that trend. www.ideaencore.com, @ideaencore
Posted by: Scott Bechtler-Levin | August 15, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Great question from Mr. Bechtler-Levin. Also curious to know whether the 90 Foundations that Tweet list accurately reflects the number of pure personal accounts -- for example, some people may have preferred not to disclose their foundation affiliation.
Posted by: Diana Church | August 17, 2009 at 08:13 AM
Hi Beth, here at UnLtd we also use social media for ongoing networking, community and resources for award winners (www.unltdworld.com) - we find it adds substantial value to recipients who often face similar problems. We also use Twitter extensively for interaction at conferences and participative events. And the organisational or personal question? has to be personal for anyone to take notice!
Cliff
Posted by: cliff | August 27, 2009 at 08:36 AM
This is great. I am always looking for leads. I'll be stopping by every day.
Thanks!
Posted by: Suzie Rivo Solender | August 31, 2009 at 05:44 PM
This is wonderful post Beth, thank you!
Peggy
@wiserearth
Posted by: peggy | October 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM