The Ning issue touches on a topic that’s very important to me and I’ve written about a number of times, including: Letting Technology Lead, Why we need a new way of building, How our tools define ‘community’ and Ning saying No to free networks.  As all of these posts mention, the underlying issue here isn’t whether Ning was the best tool on the Web or not, in fact it has nothing to do with that. As community organizers, campaigners, and organizations working to better the world, we know that the tactics and tools we use can dramatically impact our success, and if the tools we have aren’t accessible and aren’t in our control we put ourselves in a position to negatively impact our own success.

Earlier this Fall, I got a message from Laura on the Chain Reaction network (on Ning) that told members the group would be moving to another platform. I followed up with Laura and have her case study below.

Case study: Chain Reaction

The Chain Reaction network is the online space for those who attend or are interested in the Chain Reaction event, an annual conference in London focused on gathering changemakers and igniting more projects and impact. The group was originally set up on Ning, and with the change to a paid-service, Community Links (the organization behind Chain Reaction) helped the network transition to Grou.ps. They did so publicly with a blog post to the community as well as messages to the members of the network directly through the Ning platform.

Read the blog post about the transition here.

Interview

I asked Laura Hyde from Community Links to provide some additional information about the decision and process:

How did your community respond to the news that ning would no longer be free?
There were mixed responses. Generally I think most could understand why ning would begin charging, but for many community organisations such as ours it’s often a struggle to find the ££’s to pay for extra services.

How did your team decide on a new platform?
We tested a few different platforms such as wordpress, webs, social go etc. We also consulted with people in the Chain Reaction network. Grou.ps seemed to be the best in terms of functionality suited to our needs.

What did you like best about Ning previously?
It was easy to update / add content to. Feedback from network members was that it was pretty easy to use as well.

Is that functionality available on grou.ps?
Yes, although grou.ps can be a little clunkier. For example, I find that changes that I make don’t appear straight away which is a little frustrating. The added advantage of grou.ps is that there is a wiki and polls feature that isn’t available on ning. You also don’t have to pay to have a custom domain name as you do with ning.

What was the work load like to switch?
Very easy. In fact, I thought it might take a day or two to transfer all the files over from ning to grou.ps – in fact it only took about an hour which left me a little unprepared (I hadn’t updated the CR blog in time!)

And the catch 22!
As I was posting this today, I visited the new gou.ps network for Chain Reaction and was greeted with a message that the group was temporarily unavailable. I messaged Laura on twitter and here’s her response (read from the bottom up):

So the platform that touted itself as the free alternative to Ning is now no longer free either!

Phoenix or Fizzle

So, where does this leave us? Where are we now? Have most groups stayed on Ning and found a way to deal with the charges, or have most groups, like Laura’s, moved on? And, perhaps more importantly, have we as a sector learned anything from this?

Examples like the Diaspora project saw overwhelmingly positive responses from the community at large, with people donating more than twice what was requested – many obviously hoping to be early adopters of what they hoped would be a revolution on the Web, but others hoping that by contributing they could have a bit of say in where it all goes.

Is Ning going to be a phoenix – rising out of the backlash and outcry about changing to a paid-service to become the platform of choice and provide users with access and ownership in it’s future? Or will it fizzle into the growing ocean of tools that put all users at a loss from lack of control and transparency?

What do you think? What’s your experience so far? Where are you looking to build?

—–

I’ve talked about issues and ideas over the last year about the use of certain tools or platforms in the social technology for social impact sector, from Causes to Ideablob to Ning.  These conversations have moved through a version of the stages of grief: outrage, doubt, fear, wonder.  We’re now, as a community, emerging into a great place and ready to figure out what we do now.  How do we create a better way of building?

Through these discussions, I find myself creating the never-ending pro and con list, or if-then clauses.  Yes, we know where we want to go (kind of); but we are also very much here right now.  Looking at our tools, I can’t help be stop for a minute to examine what they are doing to define our communities and what “community” even means.

Here are four of the biggest examples I see as to how some of the most popular tools at our disposal for “community building” online are actually not community-centric tools at all.

Numbers do not equal Activity

Many tools—whether it’s a page, a group, or a network—focus on numbers.  The number of fans on your facebook page is one of the core features on the landing page, the number of Ning network members is the same, and again with Twitter, etc. I can’t think of a tool that doesn’t put that number right in front of you.  But, I could have a million in my “community” without a single one of them “doing” anything.  Sheer numbers don’t mean activity.  And activity is what makes a community grow and thrive.

Opportunity for Community Builders:

Use the functionality options you are given (even if extremely limited) to put activity (even activity numbers if you have to) at the forefront.

“Market” does not equal “Community”

The reliance on advertising is becoming more and more visible throughout the social media space, most recently in Ning’s move to require all network creators to pay with the exception of educators (with an emphasis on using ads to offset payments). As digital citizens we are not against advertising and promotions online, per se, but have come to accept them as part of the space where we live, work, and hang out (just like offline).  But, offline, we can create community spaces that are free from advertising.  Many of the tools popular right now don’t provide that option (obviously unless you want to pay for it).  But, your community may want to feel like it’s a community – not a market.

Opportunity for Community Builders:

Look for tools that provide the options your community wants when it comes to ads or other non-community content. (Don’t be afraid to just ask them what they want!)

Owners do not equal Leaders

Pretty much every tool requires someone to “host” it or own it: to be the first administrator, to set it up, to pay for it, etc. But there are very few communities online, at least that I’ve experienced, where that person is one of the “community leaders.”  Most all communities have various roles that members self-select or grow into.  These roles may include welcomers, trainers, supporters, creators, moderators, and leaders. By it’s very nature, a community does not have an owner—all the members are owners.  Many tools create opportunity for the owner to stand in the spotlight, without much attention going to the other, more appropriate, roles.

Opportunity for Community Builders:

Look for ways to spotlight, recognize, and thank the community members who are taking an active role to lead and support the community who aren’t automatically spotlighted in the “owner” profile.

1 Community does not equal All Communities

The inherent problem with adopting many tools is that the options, functionality, and flexibility are limited. But, not all communities function, need the same options, or even want to operate online in the same way as others.  This also points to one of the big issues in strategic development: it isn’t just about knowing where your audience is, but know what they want to do – those may not always match up and it may be the case that a catalyst (you?) can step in to help provide the space where they can do what they want.

Opportunity for Community Builders:

If you see a tool/network not being used by your community the way it has done with others, don’t assume that people aren’t getting it or need training or help – maybe the tool just isn’t right for the community’s goals. Strive to be a catalyst (a spark that creates but doesn’t own) for finding and creating appropriate spaces with the appropriate tools.

Many of our current tools require us to operate as spider networks, with a traditional hierarchy and distribution of responsibility (aka power), instead of starfish communities where we can be share and distribute responsibility, and develop in an agile, organic way.  A spider network may be appropriate for some groups and communities.  But, is it right for yours? What are your tools deciding about your community?  What have you done to redefine “community” for your network?

(For more on the metaphor used above, visit The Spider and The Starfish.)

When I start thinking about this, I come back to three main issues with the current way we build:

1. Not All Communities Can Be Treated Equally

Grassroots, hyper-local, nonprofit, and educational communities cannot be expected to operate in the same way as commercial or sponsored communities, online or off.  These kinds of groups can’t even be expected to fall in the same kinds of rubrics for use or application of tools between each other as they are inherently unique, every time.

2. Payment Is More Than Purchase

I truly believe that when it comes to the financial requirements for tools and services in the nonprofit and larger public sector, payment is far more than a purchase, it is an investment.  We are willing to buy in to something if we can be part of shaping what it is, how we can use it, how we can improve it.

3. Investment Is More Than Money

If investment was required to get a tool, I believe many groups would be willing to participate in evaluations, provide feedback, submit user stories and help in the development of the tool.  All things that take time, which is valuable. But not money.  Many groups would much rather have an impact and involvement in the shaping of the tools they use than pay for something that others control.

So, how do we build this marketplace?

When I wrote about this back in November, I closed my post with an invitation.  I’d like to repost that invitation here and then add a next step.

Your invitation:  Join this conversation.  Tell me what the recent Causes/ideablob announcements means for our sector and for you.  And share your ideas with your friends and colleagues to further the breadth of the conversation.  The more voices the better!  Here are some places to start:

• Evaluate your use of social media tools: do you encourage your supporters on other platforms to register on your website, ensuring you have their contact details?
• Evaluate your community: are you reaching a diverse community or operating in a silo?
• Evaluate your relationship with developers: are you using tools that allow you to surface suggestions, ideas, and useful functionality for development? Do you know what the plans are for the tools you are using?

I have already had creative, exciting conversations with others in this sector about how we could build a marketplace that:

1. allows end users surface ideas for tools or new functionality for existing tools
2. allows those ideas get support, gather feedback, get fleshed out by developers and users
3. allows funders (whether they are foundations, organizations, VCs, companies, etc.) identify tools to fund
4. allows developers to find work they know will be adopted and start working on tools with an active base of users
5. maintains an expectation that these tools will continue to be available for the people, by the people.

It is the last point that I think is the most important. It isn’t about having a crazy-liberal or Utopian version of the web.  It IS about adopting tools that we feel comfortable deploying to our communities and building on, knowing they won’t close or leave without notice.

I am going to continue having this conversation, examining how a marketplace could work, and what these events mean for our sector. Please join me. Share your ideas and your experiences. Let me know how you wish we built things.  Let’s start at the vision of how we want it to work, and then build towards it.

My main conclusion is that we need to double down on our premium services business.  Our Premium Ning Networks like Friends or Enemies, Linkin Park, Shred or Die, Pickens Plan, and tens of thousands of others both drive 75% of our monthly US traffic, and those Network Creators need and will pay for many more services and features from us.

So, we are going to change our strategy to devote 100% of our resources to building the winning product to capture this big opportunity.  We will phase out our free service.  [Read the full letter here.]

Join the conversation taking place on Manny Hernandez’s blog about keeping the network free for nonprofit and educational use. You can also read the news post on TechCrunch and the comments there.

Please join me in signing this Change.org petition to keep Ning free for nonprofit and education use.

Why this matters to me:

What worries me most about the pay-only option, even if it isn’t a huge $ amount is that ANY $ amount can be enough to mean no access for many. Here are a few examples:

1. Grassroots groups:  For many of the smaller, grassroots campaigns and groups that use Ning, there isn’t a one-and-only-one leader dynamic where there could be one person that would be paying. We are in the midst of change for community dynamics where people no longer need a director, a secretary and then a bunch of members. We can all be leaders and contributors to a network, a community, a movement. So the administrator on a group, at least groups I’m a part of, is not one person, but a long list of people. Responsibilities are shared and actually change fairly frequently depending on capacity and availability.
2. Community groups: Very much like the dynamics at play in grassroots cause groups, community groups struggle with the same issues around administration and ownership.  I’ve helped local community groups set up Ning communities online as a way to start building resources, connections, and storytelling in a local geographic community.  And I see it working.  But I also don’t see many of them with the capacity to pay (who pays, how do we decicde, etc.)
3. Educators: This is not a new issue for this group.  We all know that teachers and other educators use tools and supplies out of their pocket because they are determined to provide the best experience for their students and peers.  That’s why we see things like DonorsChoose emerge.  Making Ning a paid-for service could mean we see thousands of new donor requests asking for a year of service or something – totally not sustainable.

I really, really believe that Ning can deliver on their bottom line and focus on making money, as it sounds like they want to do, and still provide the service to educators and nonprofit groups for free.

I know there are lots of great examples out there like Basecamp and Huddle and many others that balance free and paid successfully.  Please share your ideas, your stories and your examples.  We really want to ensure this tool continues enabling communities, regardless of their budget.

If you haven’t already, please also sign the Change.org pledge here.

I invite you to join me on the 29-Day Giving Challenge Community!

Are you participating in the 29-Day Giving Challenge?  Let’s connect!

Learn more about the challenge and the online community.