Introduction

It’s no secret that an online presence is all but a necessity for any organization to survive, or at least remain relevant in the first world. Unfortunately being “online” isn’t enough. The internet is a vast, unwieldy beast, and it does take some planning to make it work for you. Get it right though, and you’ve just armed yourself with the second best tool any entity could ask for (the best still being a compelling product, natch).

Non-Profits are no exception, it just so happens the product is their mission. Want to promote that mission and or gather resources to execute it? Look to the money makers and learn from them.

Discussion

Websites

Before the advent of social media applications, a website was the starting point for most entities seeking an online presence. Because of the greater amount of front end effort (or cost), some entities now opt to make their website secondary or in some cases never bother at all. While this is understandable, it is a very serious mistake. A website offers several advantages over social media applications.

• No Advertisements – Unless you are using a free service to host, your website is yours alone, and you don’t have to worry about another entity inserting itself right between your lines.
• Content control – websites give you full control not just of what goes in, but how it looks. Colors and logos are often a big part of an organization’s brand. Only a website offers this freedom.
• Permanence – Websites are the little black dress of the internet. They may not be fashion forward, but they maintain a steady relevance . Conversely, the hottest social media applications today may well be abandoned or even shut down in short notice.
• Centralization – Rather than compete with social networks, a well crafted website works with them, serving as both a portal to social applications and a funneling target for social media users.

All of these advantages do come at a price. Websites require a high level of maintenance – uploading an electronic billboard and expecting any sort of positive result is pure folly. The website must have some interactive content, or at least (as above) serve as a portal to social media apps that do. Furthermore the website must be updated with some level of frequency to avoid becoming stale. Most organizations simply do not have the time or expertise for such tasks.

To help mitigate website maintenance, a powerful solution is to employ Content Management Systems. WordPress is the most oft used example – this site for instance is powered by WordPress. Drupal, SMS, and others offer similar solutions. Content Managed Sites offer end users the ability to edit content (hence the name) without editing the site itself, essentially separating the content from its engine. In short – modifying the content becomes akin to creating a Word Documents or PowerPoint. Users can upload media, pictures, link to social media sites, and even make minor design changes depending upon their level of comfort.

Advanced design aspects are still the province of information systems professionals, but by employing a CMS, you don’t need to call your IT guy just to write up a manifest on latest charity excursion.

Social Media

The game changer. In theory. To an organization long on needs and short on resources, social media beckons like an old lover, and has just as many pitfalls.

• Wide Reach – The potential for social media to reach an audience can be more or less described as “everyone online”. Realistically, that’s not likely, but even today advertisers understand word of mouth is the best for of ad. Social media is the ultimate tool for jump-starting a virtual word of mouth.
• Ease of use – Few people have the expertise or desire to build and edit a working website, and few non profits have the funding to pay someone who does. Even with CMS, a website simply cannot hope to compete with the single click ease of social media posting.
• Instant Communication – Websites may employ forums for two way discussion, but for instant interaction with customers and constituents, social media is the king.
• Front Lines – The advantage of websites are their “slow and steady”, never going completely out of style approach. But for entities looking to grab attention fast, sometimes it pays to follow the fad.
• Cost effectiveness – Social media applications and websites like may be used as fundraisers, but only social media applications are “free”. It costs nothing but time to log into an social media app and create a presence.

Doesn’t that look like a great deal? Just be careful. If not leveraged correctly, social media will happily serve as a detriment to your cause or organization. One of the biggest pitfalls is simply not keeping social content up to date. Whereas a website can get away with monthly updates, a social media site must update at least twice a week.

Worse, a website left to rot is simply ignored or perhaps assumed by viewers the information did not need updating. An out of date social media presence implies the organization is closed, too short handed to carry out their mission, or simply doesn’t care. In effect, the organization would have been better off not to use social media t all.

Another issue may simply be the overwhelming number of options. At any given time there will be ~10 social media applications with relevant world wide saturation (assuming the English speaking world). Choosing which can be a daunting task, especially considering how quickly a freshly adopted presence may quickly be replaced be something newer.

A possible solution is the top down sharing approach. Many social media applications offer the ability to automatically share to each other, and still others may work with websites by offering feed portals. For instance, consider the following:

1. Instagram allows direct sharing to Twitter & Facebook when a port is created.
2. Twitter offers automatic sharing to Facebook whenever tweets are created, and also offers users a predefined window feed for websites.
3. Most CMS systems offer auto share to twitter, Facebook, and most other social applications.

What this means is that an entity with Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, a website and very little time to manage all of them would be best serve with a compromise:

1. Set up Twitter to auto share to Facebook.
2. Leverage Twitter’s feed feature for the website.
3. All photographic posts are performed through Instagram and auto shared to Twitter. Twitter in turn auto shares to Facebook and appears in the website feed.
4. Short, non photographic messages are routed directly through twitter. Facebook is reserved for longer posts, and the website for informational articles.

Using this approach, the user is only every dealing with one application at a time – usually Instagram, but keeps two other social applications and their website flush with fresh content.

Conclusion

Leveraging the internet is not easy, but you need not pour vast amounts of time and money into creating a presence. With a bit of resourcefulness and a great cause or product, one can quickly make themselves a force to be reckoned with in the online world.

Introduction

In some ways the digital divide makes a fine example, albeit a very unfortunate one, of the Square Cube Law. It’s not simply that the digital divide itself is growing exponentially, but the rate at which commerce depends upon electronic networking climbs at a similar clip.

We in the first world have a responsibility to take on this gap, if not for altruistic purposes, then for our own benefit. As more and more of the populace becomes disenfranchised, they in turn cannot contribute to culture, physical needs, and commerce. Sooner or later we will all suffer the loss.

Discussion

Several solutions to attacking the digital divide are being tested and applied with varying degrees of success. All have their advantages and challenges.

Physical Connections

Usually when the digital divide is mentioned, the idea of having no physical connection springs to mind, and with good reason. Oft repeated elsewhere in my articles is that only ~40% of the world is online at all. Of that 40%, very few enjoy a quality of connection we take for granted.

On the surface this is an easy problem to solve. String some fiber optic, fire up an access point or two and everyone is connected, and there is some truth to this. Infrastructure is the first step to a connected society.

There are however a few challenges.

Infrastructure

What infrastructure is best suited? Satellite connections might work well in the highlands of Nepal where the open shy is plentiful and wired infrastructure is prone to destruction by the unpredictable Himalayan wind shear – but the same concept would be virtually useless in the thick canopy of South America’s rain forests.

Contact Point

Once connectivity groundwork is laid out, how do you actually connect the people living next to it? A few WIFI access points might have the capacity to cover an entire village, but what good is that when no one owns a phone? Place a phone in everyone’s hands? How long can they be expected to last in a harsh environment where the most basic human needs are sometimes a privilege?

A more prudent solution might be something akin to an internet cafe, where centralized maintenance can take place, but this again does little to connect individuals on an every day basis.

Virtual Connections

By virtual, I’m not talking about a failed GameBoy offshoot from the early 90’s. There is more to being connected than having a wire and a computer. The to us perfunctory skill of operating and maintaining electronic equipment is mythical to most of the world. Typing, searching, installing software, and understanding search heuristics on the most basic level are all skills that are necessary for an online world to be anything beyond a curious novelty.

Is it realistic to expect we can educate the entire world at the same rate we run wires into their territory? If not, how do we open up the online world to people not equipped to use it while offering the level of power that we in the first world enjoy?

Follow The Money

The final challenge is one that sees little discussion, but may pose the greatest danger to a connected, free society. I’ve barely skimmed the surface of approaches and pitfalls when attempting to connect the world, but it is obvious to anyone no matter what approach is used, that approach will be costly.

The danger though is not one o lacking funds (though of course that is a problem). It is one of power. SOMEONE is paying for the “free” WIFI in your neighborhood or a fr away country. It might be you through taxes, a Non-Profit, or some mega corp looking for publicity. In any case, the purse holds the power, and by ceding the responsibility of connection to another entity, one cedes control.

We in the first world still have a choice of how we choose to connect. Even in monopolized areas we have some (however infinitesimal) power since we are direct customers. Third world areas have no such privilege. It might not hurt to take a long look at the long term ramifications and motivations of a single entity trying to connect X territory.

Conclusion

Lots of negativity, yes? It’s only caution – we can and should push to connect the world, but in doing so avoid being dogmatic. No solution is perfect. Instead a multifaceted, careful approach based on the needs of culture, environment, and economic realities should be taken. In short, crossing the digital divide is a marathon, not a sprint.