"Many twitter NGOs follow each other back but not people w/ checkbooks. Why spend $ on adverts & mailings & not follow back potential donors?" - E-Advocate Network

"When I make a choice, will I give money to Catholic Relief Services who is following me or CARE who is not? DUH?" - E-Advocate Network

And when I said I will post it in the nonprofit tech group for discussion: "you so rock!! would love to get feedback!" - E-Advocate Network

I think her point is very valid. I can think of various reasons why some NGOs don't follow people back. Perhaps some are new to Twitter and don't know how to use a third-party client to manage a large list of people they follow, so they may only follow orgs they are interested in. Perhaps some are understaffed and don't have anyone to engage and follow people back (I suppose they could turn on autofollow, though, but then they would end up following spammers as well). For our project, we do not need donors, we are funded by a single federal grant, and I feel that it is important for me to follow a select group of quality groups as an example to to others. Now that there are lists, though, I could use lists to highlight those quality voices. - Laura Norvig

I am hoping lists might change this quite a bit. "Budget" is my thought. Then I realized that is not an excuse to tell an activist who is Tweeting away for their cause for free - but is not followed by the NPOs and NGOs who have paid staff running their Twitter accounts. She is vocal, so I am wondering if others feel the same. I am wondering if followers feel unappreciated too. - E-Advocate Network

(Full Disclosure: I am a tad disgruntled.) The people who determine what content goes out are not the same people who post the content in a lot of situations. Many of the larger, more established orgs say "hey - you young person. do the twitter thing that CNN keeps talking about and make sure people know when we do a press release/blog post/web action/fundraiser. So the intern sends out the tweets. Too many NP's are still doing one way (web 1.0) conversations. And they like it that way. - Suzannah

(still ranting) we cant talk about np tech and not address the silent underlying giant: there are major age gap issues in np's. & they have conflicting nptech ideas. the feminist community does for sure. its the intern who knows about tech, & the exec isnt interested in learning. But the exec is terrified of the intern "speaking for the organization" - even if it is 140 characters or less. they can be super protective of "the message." the whole web2.0-two-way-conversation thing still needs advocating. - Suzannah

Thanks Suzannah. A generation gap makes sense. In this case, the activist just wanted the "thank you" of a follow, it was not even a matter of conversation. Perhaps the generation gap may see this as a pandora's box - temptation to "off-message" or personal conversation? - E-Advocate Network

Exactly what I meant! Look at the daily workflow of the auto post. somewhere there is an exec meeting about an action/fundraiser/press release. The press/media person translates this to a blog post and hands it to the web person to post. the intern gets the concept of auto tweeting, so she sets that up. web person is the one who executes previously mandated "message," she wasnt even at the meeting where the message was crafted. HERE's the real question: why didnt the exec think she belonged there? - Suzannah

That is a good point: If your social media coordinator is also a public "spokes person" via the internet, they should be in that meeting. The last person invited to an exec meeting will be an intern. It is looking like social media coordinators (and the qualified Millenials often taking the positions) need to be fully intergrated. - E-Advocate Network

just a mini note: you are going to find the "on-message" obsession more with the membership orgs (ACLU, NARAL, NOW, SEIU) than the ones where the org doesnt have memberships/affiliates. Each member org can tell you of "that one time" when some one who was a chapter leader or $20 member made a comment about the org in question and it was broadcasted as the entire org's "position" on the subject. here's a NOW example. Chapter prez from little town in NJ makes a statement that prosecuting Scott peterson for the death of both lacy peterson and her fetus could lead to legislation that can be used to over turn Roe. By the next day EVERY PHONE in the national NOW office, even the interns phones, were ringing with reporters who wanted to know why NOW 'supported' Scott Peterson and was opposed to prosecution of the murdering of babies. n-i-g-h-t-m-a-r-e. So they get a little freaky about control of message. to the point where orgs now write it into their bylaws who can and cant speak for the org. (note: NOW wouldnt consent to a blog until around 2007, btw. because of the concept of 'comments') - Suzannah

i just saw your post - 'social media coordinator'? tee hee. the instances you are thinking of - the non retweeters - dont have one - that is the problem. they have the people who are in charge of message and the 'web person' they give it to to post. still in the mind frame of the web as a broadcast medium - another form of the newsletters they have been doing for years - not as a two way conversation. - Suzannah

btw: THANKS for letting me rant. :) this is a rockin concept and I love you for discussing it!! - Suzannah

Thank you for the discussion! Its the first time I have seen a dedicated activist complain on Twitter who is not in the nonprofit field- a key voice to me atleast. They are the ones who turn a nonprofit into a movement. That is how social change works. Woke me up! - E-Advocate Network

It's an awesome complaint for them to make! They bring up the issue that was stirring in the last election - people actually DO want to be part of the discussion. they dont just want to consume news and donate to the yea or the nay. basics of marketing. people do more/give more/act more, if the movement belongs to them, if they are invested in the movement. it's also the price of motivation based on hope verses motivation based on fear. people do something for you for one of two basic reasons - they fear something, or they want something in return. bush was a hell of a fundraiser. scared the hell out of everyone each time he opened his mouth. people gave money / took action because of fear. now that the progressive community is less fearful, they turn to the other side of the motivation - they do things - take action/donate, because they expect something in return. even if it is just to be a part of something bigger than they are, thats still something in return, and we need to affirm that that is indeed going to happen. - Suzannah

I have found the more sense of responsibility or effect on the situation an advocate has - the more they do. That is why ideas like the Gates Foundation's new site showing how poverty relief is progressing (good and bad) is so important. Here in Denver, there is a mentorship program where a Coloradoan makes a four year committment to mentor an at-risk highschool student - it is wildly popular. - E-Advocate Network