Influencer marketing and volunteer recruitment

I am a regular reader of the Buffer Blog. Produced by social media scheduling company Buffer, the blog regularly shares practical, inspiring content about social media, a key marketing tool in our 21st century world.

Social media is a topic I train and write on regularly. It’s a subject I find many people who lead and manage volunteers can be uncertain about or even afraid of. Yet, whilst it won’t completely replace more traditional ways to promote volunteering in our organisations, it is an increasingly important way to reach out to people, and not just those under the age of 30 - some of the biggest growth in social networks like Facebook is from those aged 50 and above.

So I want to share with you an excellent recent Buffer blog post by Ash Read on Influencer Marketing.

Ash starts the blog post by arguing that marketing is essentially about the spread of ideas. In volunteering terms this means we want to spread that idea that people should volunteer for a given cause or organisation. This is what Ash says [with some contextualising for volunteering from me]:

“Success in marketing often comes down to one simple concept: getting your ideas [that people should volunteer with you] to spread. Traditionally, mass-media adverting is the go-to way to spread ideas. Here’s how it works (in theory): you buy some ads, put those ads in front of your audience [potential volunteers], and that’s how your idea spreads. The problem with this approach is that we live in a time where choice is abundant and time is sparse. Consumers [potential volunteers] are spoiled for choice when it comes to what to spend their money [time in our context] on and have too little time to consume content and engage with adverts. What this means is that most advertising is just ignored.”

Just read that last line again.

Most advertising is ignored!

That means those recruitment posters and leaflets you lovingly crafted to. It means that swanky new TV or radio campaign your organisation has spent a small fortune on to get people to volunteer or donate money. They aren’t simply dismissed but ignored altogether.

So what do we do instead?

As Ash’s points out, we’re more likely to buy a product if it’s recommended by a friend than pushed at us by an advert. In volunteering parlance that’s word of mouth.

We’ve always known that word of mouth is one of the most powerful forms of volunteer recruitment. Simply put, if I have a great volunteering experience then I want to tell others about that. So I share enthusiastically with friends and family and encourage them to get involved so they can enjoy the volunteering experience too.

Social media, as Erik Qualman puts it in his book Socialnomics, is word of mouth on digital steroids. Or, another way he puts it: word of mouth to world of mouth.

Think of it like this: when I share my great volunteering experience with friends and family, that includes posting about it on social media. My friends (all around the world!) see this. Some will like or react to it. Some will share it. Either way word spreads about how great volunteering with that organisation is without the organisation doing anything other than delivering a great experience and perhaps encouraging me to tell my friends.

Now you may be sceptical about the idea that anyone - especially a stranger who might happen across my social media post via a friend who shared it - would respond to my enthusiastic posting by enquiring to volunteer at the same organisation. But why not? As Ash points out in his article, “92% of consumers trust recommendations from other people—even if they don’t know them personally—over promotional content that comes directly from brands.”

Just think for a minute about when you’ve bought something online. You probably read a review online, for example from someone on Amazon or TripAdvisor who also bought that book or CD or booked that hotel or ate at that restaurant. Did their review sway you to go ahead with your purchase or not? The answer is probably yes. Did you personally know them? The answer is probably no. So if our online buying decisions are influenced by someone we don’t know why wouldn’t someone trust my enthusiastic review of volunteering and want to get involved themselves?

Back to Ash’s blog post - what then is influencer marketing? Simply put, it’s word of mouth but focused through someone who will be an influencer to that audience. So if you want to more young people to volunteer with your organisation you find someone who has influence within this group to share your volunteer recruitment message on social media. That doesn’t have to be a member of One Direction but someone who has influence within their peer group, for example another young person. As Ash puts it, “influencers act as a mutual friend connecting your brand with your target consumers”.

Ash’s post goes on to explain more about influencer marketing in his blog post which I encourage you to read and reflect on. I’d also love to hear your thoughts about this topic and how we can apply the concepts of influencer marketing to volunteer management.

Over to you.

Three things I want to say about controlling volunteers on social media

I’ve just read a great blog from Kevan Lee in the team at Buffer [1]. The blog explores the concept of 360 degree advocacy and the future of social media. Kevan looks at how brands can maximise their social media potential thus:

“A business feels personal not when it speaks like a person but when it reflects the persons that make up the business.”

This line really got my attention because I think it hits upon a key belief I come across regularly when the subject of volunteers and social media arises. You see, quite often when I train on social media in a volunteering context I am told that volunteers cannot be involved in an organisation’s social media work because what they say and do cannot be controlled. The fear is that volunteers will be loose cannons, firing off any old tweet or post that might cut across the carefully controlled brand the organisation wants to project.

There are a three things I want to highlight in response.

First, it isn’t just Communications / Marketing / Branding and / or Senior Management staff I hear this from. It is sometimes from Volunteer Managers too. That might be out of fear or ignorance about social media but sometimes it’s born of a real concern that volunteers won’t be able to be controlled on social media. To me such comments speak volumes about what volunteer management has become to some people, a means of organising people to control their involvement in as low a risk setting as possible rather than inspiring and enabling people to achieve the most for our mission & cause.

Oh, and why by default assume what volunteers say online about you won’t be positive? What does that tell you?

Second, to steer clear of involving volunteers in social media because of an anxiety that we cannot control them is to fundamentally misunderstand social media. As I frequently say in response to such anxieties, control disappeared on 4 February 2004, the day Mark Zuckerberg turned Facebook on. For more than eleven years we’ve had less and less control of what people say about us as more social networks have appeared and more of us join them.

The appropriate response is not to foolishly try to shut the gate a decade after the horse has bolted but to learn to work with the lack of control and manage it appropriately. People, including volunteers, are already talking about you on social media - if you do not or are prevented from engaging with this key communication tool you just won’t know what they are saying. It’s the digital equivalent of putting your head in the sand and hoping it’ll all be OK.

Third, not engaging volunteers (and indeed other supporters) in social media might mean you are failing to realise an emerging key aspect of the very purpose of social media in an organisational context. This is where Kevan Lee’s blog post comes back into focus.

You need to read the post in full to get the complete picture but this quote sums up the key issue:

“Fundamentally, they [businesses, in our contact Volunteer Involving Organisations] are not a person, they are not a human being. What they are is a collection of humans.The individuals that make up the company are what also make the company unique, approachable, relatable. And for a really long time, the best practice for social media marketing has not been about embracing these awesome people. Wow, what a big miss! With a full view of social media advocacy, I think it raises the question: What if this changed? What if we began inviting individuals to contribute to the voice of the brand?”

In other words, we’ve been getting it all wrong if we’ve been trying to control the brand / message on social media and only engage people who are prepared to toe that party line. Instead of running scared that volunteers may say something ‘wrong’, what we perhaps should be doing is finding a way for the corporate voice to be made up of all the individual voices of staff, volunteers, donors and other supporters.

For example, on Twitter, a non-profit organisation maintains a list of all it’s supporters who have Twitter accounts. It then retweets what it’s supporters say that chimes with the brand, making use of those peoples’ own unique voice rather than trying to control what they say. In fact, in a charitable context, doesn’t this make even more sense as often volunteers and other supporters have a persona connection to the cause and so speak with far more authenticity than a social media employee in the central communications team?

Put like that it sounds so obvious. Well it does to me anyway. We need to stop trying to do the impossible and control what people say about us online and instead inspire and enable people to use their voice to help our cause. Just like our approach to volunteer management needs to become less about control and fear of risk and more about empowerment and enabling opportunity.

As Kevan says:

“Brands can embrace the individuality of their team and become more relatable to their audience. The team can have a positive impact on the quality and variety of content the brand shares. I’m particularly excited about how wholeness, personality, and diversity can fit into the equation here, too. For all the work we aim to do with refining and perfecting a social media strategy, perhaps this exact type of variety is the next frontier for brands to engage on a deeper level with the wonderful, creative, unique individuals that make up an audience.”

Once again, you really need to read the whole of Kevan’s blog to get a firm handle on what he is exploring. I highly recommend you do this.

Afterwards, pop back here and let me know what you think about his ides in a volunteering context. I’d love to hear your thoughts and maybe discuss these ideas further through my blog’s comments function.

---

1. Buffer is a company which provides a social media scheduling tool. They also produce an excellent blog on social media issues that is both informative and highly practical.  ↩

Three lessons for volunteer programmes from customer service

Dan, a colleague of mine at the volunteer management software provider, Better Impact, recently recommended a new blog to follow called "Win The Customer". Initial impressions have been good so I've added it to my already lengthy list of blogs I follow.

Here I want to share one early highlight, a post entitled Three Retail Experience Trends That Will Change Your Service Approach.

I highly recommend reading this article before you go any further with my post as I want to highlight three parallels for leaders and manages of volunteers. So, off you go and I'll see you back here in a couple of minutes.

>>>>>

Right, I hope you liked that. Here's my thoughts on three applications of those lessons for us in our work with volunteers.

The Rise Of The Mobile Wallet

In retail the use of mobile devices as a method of payment seems to be growing. How is is or could this be manifesting in volunteer management?

Well, online searching for volunteer opportunities is nothing new. The soon to be re-launched Do-It is a teenager already and similar sites exist across the globe.

What is less common is online signup to volunteering. So many organisations, if they even have a good webpage dedicated to their volunteer programme, still ask people to download a form and submit it via email in order to apply to become a volunteer. 

The aforementioned Better Impact system enables volunteers to fill in a form online and apply directly into the organisations volunteer database. No more print and send. What’s more volunteers can do this, and manage there profile, sign up for shifts, log hours etc., via a smartphone.

Mobile use of the web is skyrocketing and the expectations we all have to manage our lives on to the go - from banking to online shopping - continue to grow too. Volunteering is not immune. Volunteers want to manage their volunteering online and not being able to do so could increasingly turn people off your organisation.

Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned things like paying you volunteers’ expenses via mobile payment systems like PingIt or people applying to volunteer direct from Facebook with their applications populated automatically with the data Facebook holds on them (which is probably more than they even know about themselves!). 

Brick-And-Mortar Gets Interactive

The point the original article makes here is how can we enhance a shopper’s experience in store via mobile technology? For example, wan we give them free wifi and augmented reality apps so they can virtually try on that item of clothing and see all the different colour choices available, perhaps including those not available inshore?

In volunteer management terms I think there are two ways we can consider this trend, both relate to that period between the volunteer signing up and actually starting their role, a period that can be drawn out if intensive screening is involved.

First, how can we use online and mobile technology to provide or enhance the induction and any training we offer. Could volunteers take a virtual tour of the site via a YouTube video? Is there online learning material specific to their role that they could be working through? 

Second, if the vetting period takes a while, are there roles volunteers could be doing online that would be suitable for them until vetting is completed? What needs doing that could be packaged as a short-term, bite-sized opportunity that could lend itself to mobile? For example, monitoring the social media feeds of similar organisations to broaden the new volunteers awareness of the issues they will deal with (whilst at the same time perhaps gaining insights into ‘competitor’ behaviour for you).

Harnessing The Power Of Social Shopping

We’re all used to rating our shopping experiences online. Amazon has provided that facility for years and whether its a war and peace review or one of those “quick delivery” two-worders, chances are most of you reading this have rated something somewhere online.

I remember the idea being mooted a few years back that volunteers should be able to rate their experiences online on sites like Do-It. The reaction from Volunteer Managers and Volunteer Involving Organisations was less than enthusiastic. Perhaps because the Volunteer Involving Organisations involved are all too aware that what they offer volunteers is far from satisfactory and their ratings would reflect this?

Social media has opened this up regardless of whether a formal rating system exists. If someone has a bad time volunteering with you they can be straight onto their social network of choice ensuring their friends, family and colleagues don’t repeat their mistake.

Conversely, however, give volunteers a great time and they may be all to happy (perhaps with a little encouragement) to share their positivity about your agency with their networks.

Erik Qualman, in his book Socialnomics, refers to this as both ‘Word of mouth to world of mouth” and “Word of mouth on digital steroids”. In other words, social media is not to be feared so much as embraced as a key way to enhance the form of recruitment that consistently comes out as most effective around the world - word of mouth or personal recommendation.

You can do simple things like give your volunteers a hashtag to put on any posts they make about their volunteering, or give them some simple guidelines on what is appropriate for them to post on Instagram or Pinterest when they are volunteering?

So, there you have it, my three lessons for volunteer programmes from customer service, or at least adapted from the blog Dan shared with me.

What lessons can you share from customer service for volunteer programmes?

Specifically, what ideas do you have for how the customer service experience we give our volunteers can be enhanced via online and mobile technology?

Finally, if you’ve embraced online and mobile in this way, what did you do and what did you learn?

I’m looking forward to reading your thoughts.

A new beginning for Do-It

Last week saw the announcement of the new home for Do-It, the English national volunteering database.

For over a decade Do-It has been the go to online resource for people to find out about volunteering opportunities in England. Every 45 seconds someone finds a volunteering opportunity through Do-It and 30% of them have never volunteered before. All this has been possible through the hard work of a dedicated team at YouthNet, the owners of Do-It, and their partners (mainly local Volunteer Centres).

However, in March 2013 YouthNet announced plans to find a new owner for Do-It and last week this was announced as a partnership led by the team behind ivo.org, the network for social change connecting people, companies and organisations that want to change their world.

You can read the full press release about last week's announcement on the ivo website.

I think this is an excellent piece of news for the sector.

For starters, ivo.org's CEO, Jamie Ward-Smith, has a strong track record in this arena. Not only was Jamie instrumental in the establishment of Do-It back in 2001 but he has a strong track record in working with the local volunteering infrastructure, initially as CEO at Volunteer Centre Kensington ad Chelsea but also as a senior civil servant in the Blair Labour government when the Russell Commission was conducting it's work.

These strong links should not be underestimated in their importance. Put simply, without the information supplied by local Volunteer Centre's Do-It would not have the volume or quality of  volunteering opportunities that it does. Key to Do-It's continued survival and essential to it's future development is the relationship it has with Volunteer Centres and Jamie is well placed to drive this forward.

The there is the track record Jamie and the ivo.org team have in driving social innovation in our sector. In just a few short years ivo.org has become a key resources for volunteers and leaders & managers of volunteer programmes. That has built on the work of the Red Foundation, an initiative Jamie ran prior to ivo.org and that I had the pleasure of working with on the Modernising Volunteering National Support Service whilst I was at Volunteering England.

Just as the link between Volunteer Centres and Do-It is important for the future, so it the creativity of the new partnership to innovate, especially around the development and integration of social media and microvolunteering. This is something I think ivo.org and their partners are uniquely placed to deliver.

So this is good news for all of us, whether volunteer or manager of volunteers. Good news doesn't come along very often these days. Let's take the opportunity to celebrate with the new team behind Do-It as we wish them all success for the future.

Technology can connect us

One of the things that bugs me in my work is the assumption that often seems to be made that I work in London. This is most commonly made by people who work in London but that isn't always the case. 

It bugs me primarily because people seem to assume that anyone really serious about being in business or working with civil society is based in the capital. "You're not based in London? Why on earth not?" seems to be the subconscious thought that flies through their heads when I tell them I am based in Grantham, Lincolnshire. I've even experienced people who are surprised that I have clients who are not based in the capital

It also bugs me because people make the assumption that I can go to their office for a short meeting like its just popping down the road. In reality, it is often quicker for me to get to some parts of London than it is for some Londoners - Kings Cross is less than ninety minutes from my house but when I commuted and worked there full time some of my colleagues took longer to get in from other parts of the city. Yet it isn't cheap. At short notice it can cost me £100+ to get to the capital. Even buying a ticket in advance usually costs about £50 plus £11 for parking. And then there is the time lost, usually at least half a day to attend just a one hour meeting.

It also bugs me because it suggests a London centric way of looking at the world - "If you are not prepared to come to the city then we are not prepared to work with you". I can understand that if a potential client is based in London but if it's an infrastructure body seeking to engage with stakeholders then they should be getting out into the rest of the country not expecting us to go to them.

Of course, in the modern world we can harness technology to help break down this London / rest of the country divide. A telephone meeting can take place. Even better a Skype call so we can see each other. Perhaps something like GoToMeeting can be used which enables telephone and video conferencing without the premium rate telephone costs that fund the apparently free alternatives. Google Plus hangouts can be used too - I particularly like Voluntary Arts England's use of these. And most of these technologies don't cost much or anything at all.

I have a number of strong friendships and professional working relationships that I maintain via technology, connecting with people around the globe. I work with people I have never even met using technology, for example as part of the organising committee for International Volunteer Managers Day whose members come from the UK (me), USA, Australia and New Zealand. Only last month when I was in the States I met about half a dozen people for the first time yet I had know them for years just via email. It was like meeting old friends - because I was!

So are we harnessing the potential of technology in the voluntary and volunteering sectors to break down these divides of distance? Yes and no.

On the no front, I was recently contacted by someone based in London who was reaching out to their organisation's network of consultants, of which I am one. They wanted to arrange meetings to develop closer working relationships. I suggested dates I was in London. They didn't suit this person. I explained that I wasn't currently planning to be in London on any other dates before the end of 2013 so perhaps a Skype call would be a good way forward. They responded by indicating that it had to be face-to-face (i.e. physically present in person) if it was to achieve the aim of a closer working relationship. I had to go to them at my cost or the meeting wasn't happening. So, the organisation concerned seems to be happy to limit themselves to only having close working relationships with their consultants who are within cheap and easy reach of London. What potential will they miss out on from those of us based further afield, with experience of working in the vast majority of the civil society world that does not inhabit London?

On the yes front, look at Thoughtful Thursdays. An initiative originally born from Warrington Voluntary Action's work during the European Year of Volunteering 2011, Thoughtful Thursday's (or #ttvolmgrs in Twitter speak) connects volunteer managers across the UK (indeed now across the globe) in a weekly discussion on a topical theme related to leading and managing volunteers and volunteer programmes. Friendships have been built, strong work connections developed and offline initiatives born through a network based on technology that was developed in a part of the UK where much of the innovation in volunteering seems to be happening, the North West, specifically in and around Manchester - not London.

So, to be clear, I don't live in London. I don't always work in London. I can't always come to London. But that doesn't mean I can't develop a good working relationship with people there, or anywhere else for that matter. If we embrace technology and use it intelligently we can build strong working relationships with colleagues in our country and around the world. Perhaps it is time for more of us working in civil society to realise this.

What do you think?

How have you used technology to break down barriers of distance?

Have you develop strong working relationship with people online rather than face-to-face in person?

What lessons do you think we can all learn to make our work more effective?

I'd lvoe to hear your thoughts and ideas.

International exchange - do it!

I recently took part in one of those online meetings that reminds me how awesome the internet and associated technology is.  On the call were myself; President of Volunteer Squared, Tony Goodrow; Kathy Cahill, President elect of AL!VE; Rob Bonesteel, current Presdient of AL!VE; and Karen Buenger, President of Australasian Association for Managers of Volunteers (AAMoV).

When I started in volunteer management back in the mid-1990's we had no email, internet or Skype and  international exchange with peers was only possible with the aid of a very healthy travel budget now I can connect with colleagues in the USA, Canada and Australia in real time, working on a common document we can all see at the same time.  Of course poor Karen was up in the very early hours of Saturday morning for the call - technology is great but it can's solve the time difference we all had!

The call was convened by Kathy to discuss international links in the volunteer management community.  It was a great conversation with some fantastic ideas and great connections made.  We all agreed there was real value in trying to connect via the web the professional bodies and associations for volunteer management.  We all felt there was real value in those organisations exchanging ideas and providing support to each other.  Equally there was agreement that no one organisation should try to establish themselves as an international body for volunteer managers, hoovering up all the other associations.  Instead, we discussed potentially influencing IAVE to better reflect the importance of volunteer management in effective volunteer engagement.

I was very happy to share the great work of our own Association of Volunteer Managers (AVM) with international colleagues and I hope AVM will accept the invitation offered to them to take part in future calls which will take place quarterly.

I also shared the work done by Sue Jones (of Warrington Voluntary Action) and her team of Volunteer Management Champions.  They've done fabulous things during EYV2011 and into 2012 to raise the profile of volunteer management, to support networking between volunteer managers (principally via Ivo and their Thoughtful Thursday's on Twitter) and to show that the consultants and gurus in our field don't have the monopoly on good ideas, enthusiasm and leadership for the sector.  Again, I hope Sue will join the next of Kathy's meetings in July.

I think we need to remember that despite the cuts and economic woes we face in the UK, we have much to offer the world of volunteer management, as well as much to learn.  Exchange with each other is important and so is exchange with our peers in other countries.  I know from personal experience that seeing the issues we face reflected in the mirror of a different setting and culture can be an incredibly valuable learning experience.

I will keep you posted on how the conversations with this group of international peers progress.  In the meantime, what can you do to start some conversations with volunteer managers in other countries?

Here are some quick suggestions:

• Join one of the sister bodies to UKVPMs.  There is OzVPM for Australia & New Zealand and CyberVPM in the USA.  Also look for the various volunteer management groups set up to aid professional networking and exchange on LinkedIn.
  
• Take part in a future Thoughtful Thursday and keep an eye out for posts that run into Friday.  These are normally from overseas colleagues working a different time zone to us.  Perhaps some of them would be useful connections.
  
• Check out the resources available on the Energize website that signpost to volunteer management groups and networks internationally.
  
• Subscribe to some of the great newsletters and journals produced internationally.  Perhaps start with the Volunteering New Zealand newsletter as they are doing some awesome work around volunteer management, and perhaps subscribe to e-volunteerism.com, an international journal on volunteersim.
  
• Don't forget our near neighbours in Europe.  Check out the European Volunteer Centre (CEV) and the Volunteurope networks, both of which hold events that needn't cost the earth to attend thanks to low-cost airlines.

Let us know how you get on.

Unpacking our online presence

Friend and colleague Jayne Cravens recently wrote a blog post entitled "Why I won't follow you on Twitter" which explained her reasons for engaging with others through a variety of social media.

This got me thinking that, almost a year on from the creation of Rob Jackson Consulting Ltd, it might be useful to explain the thinking behind the various social media and websites I am involved with in the hope that this will help you think about the best way for you to engage with me/the business (and  me/the business  with you).

Before I get started I will say that with only a few exceptions the media I'm talking about here are company accounts rather than my personal ones.  So the Facebook link is to the Rob Jackson Consulting Ltd page, not my personal Facebook page/timeline.  I keep the two separate so please don't put in personal follower requests if I don't actually know you.


Website
This is the front end to the world for the business.  It explains who we are, what we do and how we can help as well as quotes and recommendations about our work.  The homepage features links to our latest news, recent posts on Twitter and the latest from our blogs.  There isn't a lot of interaction here at the moment as that takes place via the social media covered below.

Blog
This blog is the main focus for my professional writing on a whole range of topics and issues.  Some of the content is in response to announcements, breaking news etc. and some of it is more think-piece oriented.  There is no set publication schedule and comments are always welcome, whether in agreement with what I say or to air different views.

You can follow the blog via log-in or email and/or take the RSS feed - all the boxes and links for these options are in the sidebar on the right of this page.

Third Sector blog
Once a month (usually around the 1st) I have an article published as Third Sector online's "voice of volunteering" blogger.  These posts are usually shorter than the main blog and look at a current issue or a reflect on the volunteering dimension to recent news in the voluntary sector.  As with the main blog, comments are very much encouraged.

Third Sector online is a subscription service so the blog may not be available to you unless you already subscribe to the online magazine.

Twitter
Twitter is perhaps the social network on which I am most active and where most people follow me/the business.  I use the RobJConsulting account for sharing news about my work, about issues in the sector and volunteering field, upcoming events, to promote work I am involved in and to engage in conversation with others, for example via the Thoughtful Thursday discussions run by Volunteer Centre Warrington.  Twitter is also where I gain a lot of my information about what's going on with issues and organisations I'm interested in.  To that end I have set up a number of lists which I follow, from news sources to Volunteer Centres, and anyone can subscribe to these.

Facebook
There is a company presence on Facebook although I did resist doing this for many months (I am similarly resisting Google+ as there are only so many hours in the day to keep on top of social media).  To date most of what is on the Facebook page is articles and stories that I also tweet, the exception being videos and pictures which I think work better posted to Facebook than Twitter.

Also, please note that I do not link the Twitter and Facebook accounts.  If you want to follow me/the business on both then please do so.

I am currently re-thinking how I use the Facebook page as I want to differentiate it from how I use Twitter, perhaps making more use of some of the more engaging features the site provides.  If you have any ideas about how you'd like us to use the Facebook page then please do let me know by leaving a comment below.

i-Volunteer
I have a presence on i-Volunteer under the username robjackson74.  I do occasionally post to the network, mainly commenting on articles other people's blogs, but I use it much more as a source of news and information.

Newsletter
Once a month (usually about the 16th) I publish the Rob Jackson Consulting Ltd newsletter.  This has recently undergone something of a facelift and re-launch for 2012 with a view to providing a wider range of content than just what I and the business have been up to.  So alongside some company news you'll find key news stories on volunteering related issues from the previous few weeks, information on useful resources and helpful tips and links.

The newsletter is powered by MailChimp, is totally free and unsubscribing is easy if you decide it isn't for you.

Latest news
The Rob Jackson Consulting Ltd website has the facility for its own dedicated RSS feed of latest news about the company.  A quick click through to the section will show a variety of stories from the past year, announcing events I was speaking at, conferences that were taking bookings, press releases for significant volunteering events etc..

LinkedIn - Rob
If you are interested in who I am and my professional background then you can find relevant information on the Rob Jackson Consulting Ltd website and on my LinkedIn profile.  The latter option gives access to a variety of recommendations about me and my work from throughout my career, my skills and experience and shows which other professional networking groups I am involved in on LinkedIn.

Please note that (for now at least) the company Twitter feed is linked to my LinkedIn account, meaning my tweets appear in my LinkedIn status.

If you want to connect with me via LinkedIn please bear in mind that I only really accept connections from people I know and am doing or have done business with.  I don't use it as a way to connect with people I don't really know so if I don't recognise who you are I probably won't accept your request to connect.

LinkedIn - Company
Aside from me personally the business has a presence on LinkedIn.  If you aren't familiar with company sites on LinkedIn then here is a quick run down of what you'll find on our page:

• The landing page provides some brief summary information about the company, a link to my profile and the ability to sign up to follow the firm on LinkedIn.
  
• The products and services page is where the real content is.  This provides a brief summary of the different services we offer alongside recommendations of our work from clients.  These clients' images can then be clicked on, giving you access to their profiles and thus the ability to get in touch and ask them about our work.

I'm a big fan of businesses having a presence like this on LinkedIn as it gives customers the chance to sound us out before they even make first contact.  That's an additional incentive for us to consistently deliver great customer services and satisfaction because we never know who is going to contact a client for a recommendation of our work.

If a business doesn't have such a transparent approach to what they do, ask what they might be trying to hide.

YouTube
One of my aims this year is to do more video blogging.  The company YouTube site is where those vlogs will feature.  It is also where you can view videos that I think have relevance to the volunteerism field & voluntary sector and where you can access some of the videos of other YouTube users I follow professionally.

Flickr
There isn't much I do on Flickr other than use it as a space to share photos of events the business has been involved in and promote the work of the photographers who I come across at conferences etc..

Skype
I'm on Skype, again as robjackson74.  I use it for free phone and video communication with colleagues across the world as well as cheap conference calling.  If you add me as a contact please do say who you are and why you want to connect.

UKVPMs
I am involved in moderating the UKVPMs email group which I set up in the late 1990's.  UKVPMs was the first online networking forum for UK based volunteer managers and now has over 1400 members.  It is free to join and more details can be found on the UKVPMs website.


I don't expect anyone to follow me on all of these sites (except perhaps for my mum - hi mum!) but to pick and choose the content and method of engagement that works best for you.  That's why there is a range of choice for you.

However you do decide to engage with me and/or the business, I look forward to meeting you online soon.

LOCOG get it wrong on social media and volunteers

In my Third Sector blog this month I have written wrote about changing people’s perceptions of volunteering.  I hope I encourage those who read my post to celebrate all kinds of volunteering and, in doing so, help show a side to volunteering that goes beyond the traditional stereotypes of volunteers being long-serving older people so common in the media.

Sadly, another common perception of volunteers is that they are not trustworthy and cannot be relied upon.  I have lost count of the times I’ve heard people say that volunteers cannot be given access to confidential information or entrusted with ‘important’ roles because they might not turn up to do them. 

Volunteers are no more inherently untrustworthy or unreliable than paid staff.  Such attitudes are often borne out of ignorance about volunteering and even fear that volunteers may do a better job than paid staff.

So in some ways I was not surprised to read that volunteers for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games were having strict rules imposed on them by LOCOG, effectively banning the use of social media. 

You can read coverage of this story on i-volunteer and the BBC website.

Initial responses from volunteer managers on UKVPMs seemed to support LOCOG, acknowledging that there were potential confidentiality and security issues at stake and that a social media policy would be found in most places so why not the Olympics.  The criticism seemed more focused at the way the policy was introduced not the fact that it existed at all.

In my view this misses the point.  LOCOG’s policy appears to be driven from a view that volunteers will be tweeting and posting sensitive information at every available opportunity.  In other words, that volunteers cannot be trusted and are inherently likely to screw things up. 

Why?  What evidence do they have for this?  Surely volunteers will be just as concerned about their safety and that of others as anyone else?  Why then assume they’ll be snapping pictures of security sensitive things and posting them online?

As one contributor to the debate on UKVPMs put it:

“Instant communication is the norm now and to try and restrict it is a sure fire way to anger people and end up with the situation you were trying to avoid in the first place. That is, I'm sure most people would have been tweeting about how much of a good time they were having, whereas such a policy suggests they would expect people to do otherwise. Doesn't say much for their opinion of the volunteers or their respect for their goodwill.”

I wonder, do LOCOG have such rules in place for Olympic staff and athletes or are they more trusted than volunteers?  And where is the voice of the LOCOG volunteer management team, standing up for the Games Makers rather than kowtowing to this policy of their communications colleagues?

There are lots of other reasons why LOCOG’s rules are a daft idea.  Blogger Paul Adams outlines some of these from a social media perspective.

In conclusion, whilst I wonder if my predictions for volunteering and the Games are already coming true, I want to note that the original story had a wonderfully ironic postscript. 

Just under 24 hours after the original story broke the BBC also reported that the British Olympic Association wants London 2012 to be the ‘Twitter Games’. 

Perhaps LOCOG’s communications team (all paid staff I would guess) should have been more reliable and professional about doing co-ordinating their messages with their Olympic partners instead of assuming the worst about the online behaviour of their volunteers?

Thoughts on the Giving White Paper

Within the last couple of weeks the coalition government in England has published its Giving White Paper.  This follows on from the Giving Green Paper and associated essays which was launched just after Christmas 2010, and has been developed in light of the 400 responses government received to that earlier document.


What follows are some reflections on the key themes and issues arising from the Giving White Paper with a particular focus on the volunteering elements.  It is a bit of a lengthy post so here goes:


General observations

• Following on from the earlier Green Paper, it is good to see some recognition that the quality of the giving experience is a key factor in getting people to give. The flip side to this of course is that if giving isn't rewarding to the potential giver then they will be put off giving and government acknowledge this.
  
  In volunteering terms this means motivating and meaningful roles for volunteers, not just make work or the stuff nobody else wants to do.  Hopefully this will switch organisations on to the importance of designing good quality roles for volunteers and make funders (including government) more likely to resource volunteer management to deliver great experiences and not simply pursue a 'bums on seats' approach to endless recruitment that they seem to so often require.
  
  
• It is also good to see a document highlight the potential of Baby Boomers.  I think this generation has had little attention from the UK volunteering movement in recent years, perhaps a consequence of the disaster that was Experience Corps in the mid-noughties.  Yet Baby Boomers are going to be a huge potential pool of volunteers in future, but only if organisations adapt their volunteering offer to meet their needs.  Baby Boomers are very different from their parents whose volunteer efforts have shored up many an organisation that has been slow to develop their volunteering offer to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.  The USA, Canada and Australia are well ahead of us on this and we have some catching up to do.
  
  
• The commitment of £40m of funding for volunteering and social action over two years is good.  It won't make up for the funding that is being lost through the current cuts but used wisely it could help to steer people in the right direction for the future.  However, I do wonder if government will really be able to assess impact of these funds in the two year window they have given themselves before deciding how further funds will be invested.
  
  
• Unsurprisingly the issue of barriers to giving crop up again.  Yet all the barriers mentioned are external such as CRB checks and benefits rules (or perhaps more accurately the way they are interpreted by benefit advisers).  There is little or no focus on the barriers organisations themselves establish that get in the way of people giving, like inappropriate use of CRB checks, bureaucratic systems and processes, lack of investment in good volunteer leadership and management etc..  Maybe that's because government are focusing on things they think they can change.  Yet this could be an area that government could help drive change in, as they are doing with other aspects of the White Paper.
  
  
• I was intrigued by the short section on "Giving CVs".  These essentially seem to be a means for volunteers to have people rate their efforts, almost like eBay feedback.  The suggestion is that such systems could help with volunteer screening, reducing the need for things like references.  There isn't a lot of information on this in the document so I reserve judgement for now but I do see some big problems with this and suspect it will be met with great scepticism by many volunteer managers, especially in our risk averse culture.
  
  
• I like the Community First model highlighted through the example from Seattle.  The essence of this is establishing systems of support that don't just focus on funding but leverage a range of resources to enable organisations to fulfil their goals.  I am especially attracted to this because of the potential for volunteering in such models and because I am on record as suggesting leaders in the voluntary and community sector are too money oriented and need to change to meet the challenges of the new financially restricted reality we live in.
  
  
• It is encouraging to read of the proposed Giving Summit and I look forward to more details.

Volunteer leadership & management

• It is very encouraging to see government acknowledge the value and importance of volunteer management as a key element to successfully increasing the number of volunteers and impact of volunteering.  This continues a trend that really started in policy terms as a consequence of the Commission of the Future of Volunteering who reported in early 2008.
  
  Hopefully this emphasis will lead to further funding for volunteer leadership and management from government and encouragement for other funders to invest in this critical area of organisation capacity.
  
  
• On a couple of occasions the White Paper talks about investing in the training and development of voluntary volunteer managers.  This is good, more volunteers should be involved in the management of volunteer programmes.  But where is the emphasis on paid volunteer managers?  Are they to get nothing?
  
  
• There are also a couple of occasions where the document talks about retired civil servants being trained up as volunteer managers.  Interesting.  Why?  What leads government to think civil servants are going to make good volunteer managers?  I'm sure some will but the idea as presented lacks any substance and thus credibility.
  
• In respect of these last two points it is worth reading a recent blog from Jayne Cravens and the June Hot Topic from Energize.  Both contain observations on the problem in the USA of increased use of AmeriCorps volunteers a voluntary volunteer managers and the need to do this alongside 'professional' volunteer management rather than instead of it.
  
  
• There is a section in the White Paper encouraging the development and promotion of more 'self managed' volunteer opportunities.  This seems to suggest that a solution to some of the problems facing volunteers is giving people the power to select what they do and when they do it.  Government advocates concepts like Silvers of Time to aid this.
  
  On one level I totally agree.  Volunteers need to have more say in what they do and when it is done.  Leaders of volunteer need to adapt to this and embrace it, striking a balance between the needs of the volunteer, the organisation and the client.  Yet I also have problems with that government proposes.
  
  First of all such self-managed volunteering is not new.  Young people's projects have been doing it for ages, in fact they have been even more self-managed as often the young people have developed the projects themselves, not just chosen when to volunteer for them.  This was a major theme of the Russell Commission and subsequently of the work of v.
  
  What is perhaps new is facilitating volunteers to have more control over when they give via technology.  Even that isn't that new because people like New York Cares have been doing it for years and existing volunteer management software like Volunteer Squared provides a means for self-managed volunteering.
  My second concern is that ideas like Slivers only help people take control of their volunteering if there are opportunities available in organisations that have embraced the idea of self-managed volunteering.  A new website or tech tool like Slivers provides an interface but it isn't a short cut to good volunteer management and opportunity development.

Infrastructure

• I like the language used of "Providing better support for those offering and managing opportunities to give".  This is far more engaging than abstract concepts such as infrastructure, especially when most people think of bridges, roads, railways etc. when they hear that word.
  
  My only hesitation with the phrase is that it is very organisationally focused.  Volunteering infrastructure has historically supported Volunteer Involving Organisations and volunteers.  This phrase, despite its strengths, omits the volunteer element which is essential for that is a key strength of bodies like Volunteer Centres whose person centred approach gets more people from disadvantaged groups volunteering than almost any other form of volunteer recruitment.
  
  
• Which leads me to my next point and it is a concern.  Aside from the funding available for infrastructure now being £30m not the £42m stated in the Green Paper, it is also now aimed at all infrastructure not just volunteering infrastructure.  This means Councils for Voluntary Service (CVS) can access it not just bodies like Volunteer Centres (VC).  There is also a stated desire to see better integration locally, which to me suggests the agenda is to driver mergers between local infrastructure bodies.
  I spent six years working with local infrastructure bodies and have come across many good and bad CVS and VCs.  I am not therefore opposed to greater collaboration and or merger in principle.  However, evidence from Volunteering England's Annual Return of Volunteer Centres consistently shows that independent VCs are better funded, deliver a wider range of services and more consistently deliver on their six core functions than VCs who are part of a CVS.
  
  Furthermore, VCs exist to serve volunteering not just the voluntary sector.  That means they should (and many do) work with public and private sector bodies too.  CVS don't generally do this, focusing their development work on a predominantly or exclusively voluntary sector audience.  
  
  And experience shows that CVS can be all to quick to cut VC funding when times get tough.
  
  So I hope the changes between the Green and White Papers don't result in ill thought through mergers because 'government say so' or because funding is tight so it becomes the only course of action.  Many in both CVS and VC network will oppose this, as will other local infrastructure providers.  This agenda has suffered from some of the worst sector politicking I've ever seen in the past and I hope that stops.  Non-partisan leadership by the likes of NAVCA and Volunteering England is needed to ensure we end up with a fit-for-purpose local infrastructure, not just one that is cost-effective. 
  
• I am pleased to see government funding YouthNet to further develop and opening up the data on the Do-It national volunteering database.   Whilst I do have reservations about the wisdom of putting all our volunteering eggs in one online database basket, Do-It does have a good track record and a great team behind it.  
  
  Some Volunteer Centres will baulk at the idea though and this needs careful management.  VCs provide the majority of opportunities on Do-It but mistakenly think that these opportunities are theirs.  They aren't.  They belong to the organisations who need the volunteers and they don't care where they get their volunteers so long as they get them.
  Where the VCs have a point is that if they are doing all the hard work getting the opportunities onto Do-It, is becomes rather galling if someone else fills that vacancy for a volunteer, especially when many VCs are funded to place volunteers.  So it is even more worrying to see that government want Do-It to open their books to profit making bodies like Slivers of Time.  I have much more sympathy with VCs if their hard work is going to help people make money whilst they suffer more and more cuts and under-investment.
  
  Volunteering England, YouthNet and government have got their work cut out on this one.

Technology and volunteering

• As with the Green Paper, government seems to have bought the argument that a big barrier to volunteering is lack of spare time and so expresses interest in concepts like  microvolunteering.  I have recently blogged some of my concerns on this so won't repeat them here.
  
  To their credit, however, government do seem to get that a key way to get more people to give it to given them role models.  What has potential here is not celebrities or ministers volunteering but real people, people like you and me.  I strongly believe that if someone who claims they don't have the time to volunteer can see someone like them finding the time to give time and be helped to find a great opportunity to give themselves then that will be more powerful than a new website or gadget.
  
• One of the worrying things about the pursuit of technological solutions is that it assume people have the tech to access all these new ways to access volunteering.  Not everyone owns an iPhone or iPad, which seems to be the most common app platform for these things.  The social media professionals who develop these things may well have all the latest tech but not everybody does.  What about the rest of us?  And what about all those who can't afford £35-£40 a month to have the latest mobile communications gadget?
  
  Don't get me wrong, I love technology but the danger is that a constant focus on whizzy new tech solutions and the resulting shift of the focus in volunteering terms onto these new ideas could create more barriers than it removes.
  
• On a few occasions the White Paper talks of new technology and social media giving people new opportunities to give or creating attractive placements.  This is very worrying because by and large they don't.  Technology, websites and social media help people find out about and engage in opportunities to give their time but they rarely create the opportunities.  To buy into the argument that they do suggests that anyone can build a website or app and people will have a rewarding giving experience.
  As Oxfam said in response to the Green Paper which said "...there is a danger that seeking technological solutions [to booting volunteering] may lead to a focus on mechanisms rather than the quality of the volunteering opportunity.  The first priority should be to ensure that meaningful opportunities are a priority."  
  
  I worry that Oxfam's excellent point hasn't been truly grasped by government yet and hope it will be, lest they invest £millions in new ideas that look sexy but deliver little.

So there you go, for what they are worth those are my initial thoughts and observations on the Giving White paper.  Government rightly acknowledges that this is the start of a process and discussion about how we realise a real change in giving in the UK.  So I hope my thoughts add to this in some small way and I look forward to hearing your ideas and responses via the comments section below.

See you at the Giving Summit. 

Microvolunteering

If you are a reader of blogs, articles, tweets and a variety of other material on volunteerism then the concept of microvolunteering cannot have escaped your notice in recent months.

In a nutshell, the idea is that you can take part in volunteering through activities that require a very small commitment of your time.  They are commonly available online (although offline microvolunteering does take place and has done so for years), especially via mobile phone apps and other technological and/or social networking means. 

I won't go into more detail here about what microvolunteering is because plenty of others have covered the topic before.  For example, Help From Home have produced a very good free download introducing the concept and have also made freely available a guide to setting up a microvolunteering project.  Sam Sparrow, the excellent head of the volunteer unit at Catch 22, has also written on the subject to in her blog about modernising volunteering the micro way.

Anyone who has heard me speak on the microvolunteering concept will know what whilst I think the idea has potential, I am also sceptical about its two most commonly stated benefits:

• That microvolunteering allows people who don't volunteer because they don't have the time to give to engage in ways that fit their lives 

• That those who engage in microvolunteering will likely catch the volunteering and become more regular volunteers in future.

For me there are three reasons for my scepticism on microvolunteering.

Time poverty - real or perceived?

Firstly, we seem to be buying into the belief that people don't volunteer because they don't have the time.  In my experience, people don't volunteer because they think they don't have the time.  That's an important distinction.

If they really don't have the time then maybe microvolunteering is a solution.  

But if they really don't get involved because they think they'll be asked for more than they are prepared to give then there is a different and potentially more powerful approach we can take. 

One that changes how we plan for volunteer engagement so we don't just offer long term, open-ended time intensive opportunities.  

One that seeks to give them positive role models, to show how people just like them (not celebrities or politicians but real working people who have to balance jobs, family etc.) manage to give just some of their time to good causes.

NCVO recently published "Participation: Trends, Facts and Figures" and the following lines from a section on political engagement struck me as relevant to this issue of microvolunteering:

"The most common reasons for not participating in the 2010 general election were...a 'lack of time' or 'being too busy'.  So, whilst the internet gives us greater access to democracy than ever before, without building knowledge and fostering interest it's unlikely to make a dramatic difference."

In other words, as more and more online tools have been developed to help people engage with politics, there is still a problem of people saying they were too busy to vote.  

The cautionary parallel for microvolunteering is that if we don't tackle the root causes of people's lack of engagement with volunteering - for example, the reasons for their perceptions of time poverty in regard to volunteering - then we can develop all the whizzy tech tools we want but we won't ultimately solve the problem.

Micro becomes macro?

Secondly, nobody can yet point to any evidence that people who do microvolunteering go on to macrovolunteering, that is volunteering that would fit with most people's understanding of giving time on a more regular and/or time intensive basis.

Further on in the NCVO paper on participation there is a section on e-campaigning.  I quote:

"People primarily participate through digital channels because it is fast, easy and at their convenience.  While it can be used for deepening engagement, most organisations aren't yet putting effort into achieving this."

If this isn't happening in campaigning, an area of civil society activity that gets lots of attention and support, then I am pretty confident that it isn't happening in volunteering, the Cinderella of the sector.  That isn't to say that it won't happen, that someone won't prove that microvolunteering leads to macrovolunteering.  I hope they do.  But it does suggest that right now that evidence isn't there.

Impact - is there any?

The parallels with other forms of participation courtesy of the NCVO report continue, again via talk of e-campaigning where I was struck by this line:

"For most supporters, e-campaigning makes supporting what they believe easier and more convenient.  This ultimately gets more participation in the campaign.  What it doesn't do is guarantee and impact: this still relies on good research, strategy and implementation".

To read a lot of the writing on microvolunteering, you'd be forgiven for thinking it is some kind of magic bullet to engaging time poor people in your cause.

However, just as there is a dearth of evidence to demonstrate the alleged micro-to-macro link, so there is also a huge gap in our knowledge about whether microvolunteering actually makes any meaningful difference. 

Even if it does get more people into volunteering, microvolunteering doesn’t yet appear to guarantee that what they do has any positive impact at all.

I am not alone

And I am not alone in my scepticism about microvolunteering. 

Jayne Cravens, perhaps the world's leading authority on the use of technology in volunteerism, recently wrote two excellent blog posts about how microvolunteering is virtual volunteering and reflecting on another person's take on microvolunteering following the publication of Leonie Shanks' excellent sceptical blog, microvolunteering: fast food for the Big Society.

Final thoughts

I hope by now you have realised that I think the case for microvolunteering has been overstated and that it is seemingly becoming accepted as the next big thing without any evidence existing to show microvolunteering deserves such attention.  

I look forward to being proved wrong, I really do.

I hope someone can show that it does effectively tackle real or perceived time poverty, that it does help people catch the volunteering bug and up their commitment accordingly and that given the profile it has microvolunteering really does make a real difference to good causes.

Until then I shall sceptical about (but not anti) microvolunteering.


NB - Since my original post there has been a discussion about my thoughts on i-volunteer.  Also, Ben Rigby over at Sparked.com has published his own response.  As Ben says, "It’s really exciting to hear so many people thinking through the problem areas and possibilities of this dynamic new field" and I'm proud to be playing a part in that.