Frustrated by your non-Communication Colleagues? Think of Them as Toddlers

Over my 36 years of doing communications for non-profits, I have come to respect and admire my colleagues who manage and implement various programs.

They are smart and amazing people who find creative solutions to challenging issues such as poverty, hunger and the effects of natural disasters.

And yet, they often drove me crazy.

No matter how many times I’d tell some of them, they would still forget to let me know when they needed help with communications—a press release, poster, graphics, website change or whatever.

More than once someone would rush in apologetically to say they meant to let me know sooner, but they need it tomorrow. Could we bail them out?

(Sometimes they never told us at all; we’d find out about it after the program was launched, sometimes through the media.)

Some of my communications staff became really annoyed and aggravated by their repeated shortcomings. But it never got me down.

The secret? I learned to think of my program colleagues as toddlers.

That sounds disrespectful. I don’t mean it to be.

What I mean is like toddlers, my program colleagues couldn't help themselves. 

They promise to let you know in plenty of time about their communication needs, but they just can't remember.

Like toddlers, they were self-centred.

Not in a bad way; their world simply revolved around the important task occupying their attention. It's was hard for them to think about other things, like communications and fundraising.

Like toddlers, they lived in the moment.

They couldn't help it; they were so busy sometimes they could barely breathe.

Like toddlers, they weren't malicious.

They didn't intend to make my life miserable. Stuff just happened. Time got away on them. Plus, they are really, really sorry.

By thinking of them as toddlers, I could avoid becoming angry and frustrated.

It provided a calming effect: They really couldn't help themselves! That’s just the way toddlers are.

I’m not knocking people who work in other departments at non-profits. They do amazing things in their areas of specialization. I was in awe of their abilities.

But they weren't trained to think like communicators or fundraisers. That wasn't their skill or interest.

And it didn't apply to everyone. Some followed guidelines about timelines and deadlines scrupulously.

They did everything correctly when it came to getting the support they needed from communications and fundraising staff.

Those people were special, angels sent from above, and we did everything on heaven and earth to assist them—even if they occasionally forgot.

But the others? Toddlers. Cute as a button sometimes, but still prone to disappoint us.

So the next time a colleague forgets to give you enough lead time for a press release; or fails to invite you in early for conversations about a new program or project so you can set up a good communications and marketing plan; or applies for a large grant that requires matching funding but forgets to tell you so you can budget and plan for it; don’t think of them as fully functioning adults.

Smile, and think of them as toddlers.

From what I can tell, it’s the only way to have a long career in communications, marketing and fundraising.

When it Comes to News, What's Really on Your Phone?

For decades, pollsters have known people lie when self-reporting about how they pay attention to news. That’s why it’s so hard to trust those kinds of surveys.

When asked what they watch on TV, for example, people might say documentaries about the state of the planet—because they know they should. 

In fact, what they mostly watch are comedies and other forms of escapism.

Nothing wrong with that. It's just that you don't get accurate information about what people are really reading, watching and listening to.

That’s why counting clicks online has become the media’s best friend.  

It's not the best form of measurement, of course. But through what people click on publishers can tell what people actually like—not what they say they like on self-reported surveys.

The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism took this to heart it wanted to know how much people under the age of 35 in Great Britain and the U.S. were actually reading news.

They started by asking them what news apps they had installed on their phones—something that shows interest and even intent.

Next, they came up with an ingenious way to get around the discrepancy between what people say they do, and what they actually do.

It was simple, really. They asked participants in the study to give them their phones so they could check battery usage for their apps.

As anyone who has checked knows, the apps you use most take the most power.

And the results?  

Although the participants had downloaded news apps, the battery usage reports showed they actually spent very little time on them.

According to the study, no news app was in the top 25 apps used by participants.

In other words, while they may have intended to follow the news, in real life that didn’t happen.

But if you only asked them what news apps they had on their phones, you might mistakenly believe they were avid news junkies.

Admittedly, the researchers had a small sample size; just 20 people between the ages of 18 and 35, half in the U.S. and half in the UK. So we need to be careful about drawing too many conclusions.

But the results once again reveal the truth as explained by Derek Thompson in an article in Atlantic Online in 2015: "Ask readers what they want to eat, and they'll tell you vegetables. Watch them quietly, and they'll mostly eat candy."

What’s on your phone?

Hey, Media; If You Want to Engage More People, Don't Bum Them Out

Surprise! People don’t like news that bums them out.

That’s the conclusion of a new study reported by Nieman Lab about why people avoid news that makes them feel depressed.

You know, like almost all the news out there these days.

In the article, it was reported that almost a third of people surveyed worldwide for the Reuters Digital News Report said they “often or sometimes” avoid the news.

And why is that? The leading cause was because “it can have a negative effect on my mood” (48 percent).

Twenty-eight percent (the third leading cause) said it was because it made them feel helpless.

Now, some things that happen in the world just can’t be sugar-coated: War, crime, poverty, natural disasters, mass shootings (in the U.S.), starvation.

People need to know about those things if they are to be informed and engaged world citizens.

But that’s not all they need to know. 

They also need to know what, if anything, they can do about it, or what others are doing about it to make things better.

And that is called Solutions Journalism, which I have written about before on this blog. (Here, here and here.)

With Solutions Journalism, people are presented with a problem, but also with ways to respond.

For example, they could be being given links to aid groups when there is a natural disaster in the developing world.

Like this article, in the Winnipeg Free Press, about how to respond to Hurricane Dorian in the Bahamas.

Or it could be interviews with people who are working on fixing the problem—neighbours, social service organizations, faith groups, NGOs, etc.

Something that shows somebody is doing something; it's not all hopeless.

Of course, that requires more time, and likely also follow-up, instead of just drive-by reporting.

It means reporters coming back to the story in a month or more to see if things are improving—along with things learned that could be useful next time around.

And not only that; people who feel empowered by journalism come back for more.

Research by Caroline Murray and Talia Stroud at the Center for Media Engagement at the University of Texas confirms this.

They found when people don't feel bummed out by a report they have a higher perception of the quality of the article, a greater sense of personal positivity, an increased intention to become engaged, and a desire to read more articles about the issue.

“When it comes to solutions journalism, the more information you can provide readers, the better. Adding additional components beyond the problem and the solution (i.e. implementation, results, and insights) can bolster positive responses to your work,” they say. 

This is a change from past practice. .

In the past, reporters were content to see their role as describing problems, then letting others figure out how to fix them.

But that is changing as the media finds itself on the ropes and needing to engage news consumers more.

By working with people to fix problems, the media can be seen not just as a watchdog—an important function—but also as a good neighbour who helps out. 

Someone who doesn’t bum us out all the time, in other words.

Photo at top from the Rescue Time blog.

Shit Non-Profits Say

“Our board chair encouraged us to be nimble, so we created a subcommittee on nimbleness staffed by a rep from each department to draft a Plan For Nimbleness. We are currently on Version 16 of this iterative process.”

That is an example of a Tweet from Shit Non-profits Say, a Twitter account that shares, well, the shit that gets said in non-profits.

The account, which is dedicated to “capturing the aesthetic beauty of non-profit organizational expression (all we need now is a facilitator),” has over 5,700 followers from the non-profit world (including me).

To date, there have been over 600 Tweets that share some of the weird, frustrating, eye-rolling, crazy and absurd—yet earnest and well-meaning—things that get said by people in non-profit organizations.

Things like this:

“Our executive director has asked to review all tweets in advance.”

“We don’t just have ideas, we have visions. And not just any visions, we have bold visions.”

“Why can’t you understand that capacity building is you giving me a multi-year grant?”

“After a three-hour facilitated discussion, the board concluded that our target audience is the general public.”

And so on.

As someone who spent most of my career in non-profits, the things found at Shit Non-Profits Say comes pretty close to some of the conversations I’ve heard over the decades. 

Whether it's NGO-speak or insider code words, these are comments that make people exchange puzzled glances in meetings: Did that person really just say what I just heard him or her say?

Although nobody's name is attached to Shit Non-Profits Say, I get the sense it is run by an insider—someone who respects and loves non-profit work, and appreciates the pressure non-profit staff are under, yet at the same time is driven crazy by the shit that sometimes get said.  

While the comments poke fun at life in the non-profit world, they also expose some uncomfortable truths about life for people who work there.

These are things like lack of resources, poor work-life balance, low pay, impossible fundraising targets, over-reliance on grants, impenetrable prose, interminable process, boards that meddle, and meetings—so many meetings!

At the same time, some of the things that are shared are really funny. And who couldn’t use a good laugh now and then? (Or even just a knowing smile.)

One thing that isn't clear is whether these comments come from the account owner's own experience, if they are submitted, or just made up. 

In one respect, it doesn't matter. The comments sound true, no matter their origin. All of us have heard variations at one time or another (or lived through that same kind of lengthy and unproductive meeting.)

Anyway, here are a few more gems from Shit Non-Profits Say. Any of these sound familiar?

Person 1: “I need your feedback on the content of this presentation. Just the content.” Person 2: “This isn’t our current Power Point template.”  Person 3: “I’d like to make an argument for two spaces after periods.” Person 4: “You should capitalize the word program.”

“This one-page memo has eleven authors.”

“We are totally committed to spending $800 in staff time to investigate your documentation for the $2.14 coffee that you want reimbursed.”

“Can we somehow make process our goal? Because we’re exceptionally good at that.”

Person 1: “I just found 10,000 copies of an out-of-date brochure in the storeroom.” Person 2: “Hang on to those. We may need them someday.”

“We don’t have answers, we have SOLUTIONS. And we don’t just have solutions, we have INNOVATIVE solutions.”

“Our strategy in this space is to leverage dynamic change resources to launch utilization of transitional scaling agencies and community supports.”

And especially for people who work in communications and marketing, these two gems:

“If we just do good work, the media will take notice and money will begin flowing in our direction.”

“There was a mean article about us in a newspaper six months ago. We have been internally editing a letter-to-the-editor ever since.”

Check it out.  

A Heart Attack & Two Strokes Away From Insolvency: A Lesson from the Closing of Pacific Standard Magazine

A heart attack and two strokes away from insolvency.

That’s the way the precarious financial situation of a charity was once described to me.

That charity was so dependent on the generosity of a few people that if they were suddenly unable to donate, the work of the organization would be over.

Thoughts about that charity came to mind when I learned that the magazine PacificStandard was shutting down after ten years due to its main funder pulling out.

The magazine, which reported about social justice and environmental issues, was dependent on a foundation for the majority of its $3.5 million annual budget.

The reason given was the foundation was no longer in a position to fund the magazine, or any of the other charities it supported.

The loss of the publication, and the jobs that were lost, is lamentable. Yet it proves once again the danger of being overly-reliant on one source of funding—be that individuals, foundations or governments.

Over my career, I’ve seen the good and the bad of large gifts.

On the plus side, they make so much important work possible. On the negative side, they can lead organizations to become lazy in actively seeking new donors to make sure they don’t end up like Pacific Standard.

As anyone who does fundraising knows, you forget the donor pyramid at your peril: Lots of smaller givers on the bottom supporting the fewer larger donors on the top.

The idea behind the pyramid is that the larger and steady base should allow an organization to weather the loss of a large donor or two near the top—even if the loss really hurts.

Ten thousand people giving $100 is better than one person giving $1 million, in other words.

Especially if that large donor might soon have a heart attack or stroke.

A Simple & Effective Way to do a Video Interview (Also, No White Saviours)

No White Saviours is the name of a new Instagram account about how white people from the west can stop trying to save Africa—or other countries in the developing world.

According to the founders, “we never said 'no white people.' We just know you shouldn’t be the hero of the story.”

That’s an important message to hear. But that’s not why I am sharing it on this blog.

The reason I’m sharing it is because of the simple but neat way the BBC chose to interview the two women behind the campaign.

All the BBC did was a basic Q & A, posing the questions in text and then letting the women answer them in video.

There are no amazing graphics or photos; just two women talking.

Of course, the clip is edited for effect and length. But that happens in print or video.

Take a look. And if you are looking for simple and effective way to interview volunteers, recipients, staff, board members or others, consider giving this a try.

Read more about No White Saviours on Medium.

Read more about ways the BBC is trying to improve the online information and news experience.

From the BBC: Ways to Make Online Stories More Appealing to Younger Readers

Earlier I wrote about how the BBC was experimenting with different formats to attract and keep the attention of younger readers on mobile devices.

They tried 35 things, like expanders, jump-offs and viewpoints.

And what was the result?

“The clear favorite prototypes were about explaining things better and showing the many different sides to stories,” lead researcher Tristan Ferne says.

Among the things showing promise are expanders, incrementals, summarizing and asking why.

An expander is an in-text yellow ellipsis after a key term/event/name/etc. that pops out some more information when clicked.

An incremental is an embed that provides more options for learning about the story (e.g. a short video clip).

Another thing that seems to work is personalizing information for users (although the BBC doesn’t like the word “personalization”).

The BBC found users were happy to swap personal information like ZIP codes for adjusted news. News could then be adapted for the reader’s location.

Once the location was known, the BBC could then supply information that answered the question: “What does this mean for me?”

In the answer, readers could know the implications of a national policy change for where they live.

Summaries are also important. Readers can’t be expected to know what the bigger picture is all about; why is food needed in South Sudan? What is the genesis of the crisis? Or even where is South Sudan?

Another idea is what the BBC called “consequences.”

Similar to “what does this mean for me?”, it offers readers a button to learn more about the impact of an issue. (e.g. what a government cutback to health care might mean where they live.)

Asking why questions is important, too. It anticipates questions readers might have about an issue.

Why are people hungry in South Sudan? Why are LGBTQ people afraid in Kenya? Why don’t girls go to school in Afghanistan?

Again, it’s a way of not presuming the reader knows more than they do—or as much as the writer knows about the subject.

More information about the results of the BBC research can be found here.