Start by following the blogs you find interesting here:
http://nonprofit.alltop.com/

Perhaps this is oversimplifying the problem, but it worked for us.

When I was at the Illinois Department on Aging local NFP chapter in a tiny County of Northern IL, we were faced with exactly this problem.

We found the best solution for us among our Board members.
We advertised for a Board Member that was tech savvy in all above mentioned areas. The gal we took on was fabulous.

We saw a turn around within less than 3 months. She had the time to monitor the re-vamped web site daily-contacts with direct e-mails to staff that was also routed to their mobiles were implemented-and links to other social media.

She did such a fabulous job; we eventually became the busiest IDOA NFP office in Northern IL. We had the most presence, served people from counties 7 times our size, and had to establish evening and weekend hours.

We became eligible for more grant money-and deeply broadened our donation base.

Great subject Jon.

With limited resources the holistic approach is essential. E-mailing lists are important for communicating newsletters and specific news with your supporters but they also contain material that can you used for conversation within social media such as Facebook and Twitter. I totally agree that there is no point in introducing social media to an organization unless you are prepared to engage in a conversation and have something to say on a regular basis.

One thing I have observed more recently is that some corporation CSR efforts are increasingly via voting. Both CITCO and Pepsi have taken this approach. If an organization chooses to go after this money they need to build their fan base and thus their fan pages.

Providing examples of how not-for-profits use social media would be helpful to organizations – with good and bad examples. It is a great way of keeping in view with your supporters on a regular basis but you need to have something worth saying.

Great post and a great topic.

Mark’s right on – the problem is usually people, and technology is rarely the solution. The best [ website | social media plan | software | hardware ] won’t necessarily help if you don’t have people who can use them, maintain them, feed them, and benefit from them.

That said, some tactical tools that I would recommend to a non-profit who feels like it’s in the stone age and wants to improve:

• Getting the word out and having a 24/7 place for people to interact with you: Website with a content management system that your people can use
• Expanding your network: Facebook, LinkedIn, or any other appropriate (niche is great) network that will help you get access to your constituents’ networks.
• Being more efficient in your operations so you have more time to focus on your mission: workflow/collaboration tools like Google Docs; instant messaging (astonished when people who sit at computers don’t do some kind of IM); shared file space (local or offline); automated, off-site backups!
• Accept donations online, but facilitate phone/in-person credit card giving: Network For Good, PayPal, etc.
• Keep track of donors, your contacts with them, and how much they’ve given – there are tons out there, find one that suits you. Even tools like Highrise CRM are better than just scribbling notes in your notebook, only to forget them.

Think about the problems facing non-profits – being understaffed, overworked, underfunded, poor efficiency, lack of leadership, lack of vision, etc. and how the tools can help them fix or address those issues. Sometimes a little improvement can free up significant time or resources that can pay off elsewhere.

Now I work for a massive, high-profile non-profit, and the problem is still people. When the urgency to get the message out/spread awareness is so great, your ambitions will always outstrip your capabilities, I think, and it’s particularly acute for non-profits who always (to an extent) feel a little guilty about spending money internally instead of sending the money out to address problems in the world.

So before you answer the technology question, you need a clear sense of what the technology is supposed to accomplish. If you’re on Twitter, why? If you feel like you need a Facebook page, why? What do those tools allow you to do that you can’t do (or do as well) through other means? Once you have a clear answer to those questions, it’s easier to see why you need to dedicate personnel to maintaining and advancing things like Twitter streams that don’t feed starving babies in Africa.

Along Brad’s point, there is a pyramid aspect to these things. Every org needs a website, for the same reason it needs a phone number. Once you have the site, you need online calls to action: here’s how to volunteer, here’s how to donate. You need a mobile-optimized site if (and only if) your mission and online presence give people a reason to access your site while on the move, rather than simply waiting until they get home — I haven’t seen many non-profit sites that satisfy this requirement. You should step into social media only if you’re prepared to be social in doing so: Twitter and Facebook are conversation platforms, and don’t function very well if you try to use them as broadcast media.

Video? Do it if you can do it well. Don’t build out a YouTube channel just because you can.

And to bring this back to the people question, given that most non-profits are going to be chronically short on resources and personnel, it’s better to focus on a few things and do them well than it is to try to check every box on the Web 2.0 checklist. The question of which things you should focus on gets back, ultimately, to strategy and institutional identity.

I particularly like your Maslow’s hierarchy analogy, Brad. And amen, amen, amen on your “it’s another thing entirely” remark, Mike.

There’s also the other major resource: people. It’s one thing to sign up for a Twitter account, another thing entirely to update it on a regular basis. My suggestion would be to tie it into their existing communications/development habits. Most nonprofits have some sort of newsletter whose content could be reused for online purposes.

Last thought: I’ve seen nonprofits with a very “top-down” approach to communication, where everything has to go through the executive director before it gets published. That might be OK for a quarterly newsletter or annual report, but it’s not a good way to approach social media.

When you say “technology” I don’t think web, I think desktops and servers. Is there a better word for what you are talking about? Must Have On-line Tools?

In my mind, the tools you list are a pyramid, easy to use/navigate web site is the foundation (incl mobile), then email campaigns, then online giving, then social media, then video. Sort of a Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Also, these all predispose that you have a clear message about why people should care about your organization and a clear definition of the type of people who will be most likely to engage your organization. How do those people want to engage?

Brad