Muse Vue 360

Muse Vue 360 tag:musevue360.com,2008-12-09:/blog//1 2011-11-04T18:58:27Z Movable Type Pro 4.23-en Value - The Only Word That Matters tag:musevue360.com,2011:/blog//1.27 2011-11-04T18:27:11Z 2011-11-04T18:58:27Z

Jennifer Eifrig http://musevue360.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=1

I've just come off a forced "vacation," courtesy of a freak October nor'easter that dumped a foot of snow on my hometown, and took out 95% of the power. I'm a refugee from the 19th century, coming back into the 21st: four days and five nights without electricity, no land line, limited cell coverage, no email, no social media. Everyone is saying that these events "force us to evaluate our priorities," which sounds like a platitude, but the essence of the sentiment is correct. And the key is the "-valu-" in "evaluate."

In a marketplace where one can find, read, and buy anything, what matters anymore? I learned that keeping warm in sub-freezing temperatures, having light to see by, and bathing regularly do actually matter. I was willing to trade my time and money to have access to these niceties. So were my peers - my brother sent me camping supplies via the Internet in order to help me out, and I was thrilled. When you have most of a tree down in your back yard, a chainsaw is valuable. But it has to be the right chainsaw - the electric one in my garage was doing me no good as long as I was off the grid. In marketing speak, it had no value proposition.

So here's the lesson for my nonprofit clients: Have an emergency plan (if you don't, get in touch with me, and we'll develop one together); and know what's valuable in very specific terms about what it is you have to offer your audiences/customers. It doesn't do any good for the staff and leaders of a nonprofit to "know in their hearts" that their organization and its work is valuable. The only thing that matters is whether your audiences/clients/customers instinctively understand your organization's value from their own personal experience. They have to have firsthand experience, a sort of "aha!" moment that will cement their relationship with your organization in their mind.

How can you create that "aha" moment? My suggestion is to constantly measure your organization's services against the marketplace, and look for ways to improve the connection between them and your supporters. The closer the connection, the more value is created. People will support (i.e. volunteer, contribute, pay for) their first priorities first. Logical, right? During the power outage my first priority was to stay warm. My second was to eat. My third was to have light. My last was to have a hot shower. Everything else kind of fell by the wayside.

Folks are stretched to the max right now. Money isn't plentiful, and demands are multiplying. You need to reach out and say, "We're here, we're valuable because..." and the appeal has to match a need in the supporter's life.

Here's a litmus test: Is what we have to offer the best available? Is it useful? Does it meet a real need in the community(ities) we serve? Is it easy to understand? Is it affordable? Do people want it, or do we have to really fight to get people's support and attention?

Value. It's the only thing that matters right now, and honestly, I don't see that changing. This is the "new normal" everyone is talking about. Get used to it, and change if you need to.

I'm off to start up the chainsaw. Hope you all survived the storm okay! Peace.

]]> Who's Your Peeps? Or, Identifying with Your Community tag:musevue360.com,2011:/blog//1.26 2011-04-18T16:55:40Z 2011-04-18T17:50:54Z

Jennifer Eifrig http://musevue360.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=1

I recognized many faces, and knew many people well, but hadn't seen them in awhile. Yet, when they came up to me, I found I had to work very hard to engage with them, to find something to say other than, "How are you doing? I'm okay; things have been busy." Not exactly inspiring conversation.

I've often said that consulting is a lonely job, but I was experiencing more than simple isolation. Instead, I realized that what I was lacking in common with these colleagues was a frame of reference, a shared subcontext born out of consistent interaction. As a consultant, I move in and out of groups all the time. My interaction with a particular non-profit may last several years, or only for the duration of a short-term project. While I'm working with that group, I'm part of their community. We have a shared context built on give-and-take interaction around some common goals. But that interaction may be limited; they may not want, need, or invite me into the circle of people who make key and/or long-term decisions. Thus I'm a temporary resident in the community, and that's okay. And through the clarity of a lonely lunch, I also realized I'd hit upon a malaise affecting many of the non-profit clients I work with: lack of community.

But wait, you say, we have members. We have visitors and clients. We have volunteers and a wonderful board. We come in contact with lots of people. Aren't they our community?

And the answer is, yes, they can be, but are they really?

In biological terms, a community is a group of living organisms sharing a populated environment. In a human context, we add the concept of a shared system of beliefs, a shared interest in common welfare, and/or a shared identity, preferences, and needs. Groups on Facebook, for example, are often termed "communities," but as my wise husband once said, "Sure, you've got 1,000 Facebook friends. How many of them will lend you money or help you move?"

A community is your peeps. Your friends. Your people. The ones who got your back, who will lend you money or help you move. It's more than geography; it's more than numbers; it's about love, the kind of binding affection for something or someone that ties people together and provides a foundation of experience and values that in turn become the platform on which new experiences and interactions are played out. Communities are maintained through constant interaction and sharing, scanning for dissonance, and reacting to it.

Because I am active in many roles in my life - mom, non-profit consultant, novelist, etc. - it's a challenge to maintain communities in all of them. And Facebook and the like aren't enough: many of the same people I found it difficult to talk to I keep tabs on via social media all the time. No, it's about real conversation, and doing things together.

So what's the lesson for the non-profit world? I'd apply my husband's litmus test: how many of your donors, clients, volunteers, board members, and other "communities" would lend you money or help you move? That's really what you want them to do, right? Donate and take time out of their own lives to do something at your organization's request? Who's your peeps? How well do you really know them? Do you know if they love you? Hint: loving you involves more than pressing "Like" on Facebook.

Yeah, I thought so. I have to work on maintaining my communities, too. I need to find more opportunities for face time, patient listening, joint experiences. I see my fellow novelists in my writing group on a weekly basis, so I know what's going on in their lives. It's natural to become absorbed in whatever and whomever is right in front of you. But neglecting the outliers means the "inner circle" grows smaller and tighter. Pretty soon you start to wonder who those people over there are, anyway. And then you find yourself wondering why they don't give the way they used to, or volunteer in the ways you want them to, or come to your events, or renew their memberships, or bring their friends.

Peeps got each other's back. Make a point of finding out in a sincere way what your communities want and need. Interact with caring. Show them the love. It's work, and the interacting will probably redirect your priorities, challenge your assumptions, and change your organization in a profound way. But it's work that you have to do, or you may find yourself eating your lunch alone.

So, peeps, tell me: what are you up to these days, anyway?

]]> Google eBookstore: The New Killer App for History Geeks tag:musevue360.com,2010:/blog//1.25 2010-12-26T17:34:51Z 2010-12-27T01:14:13Z

Happy holidays, gentle readers! I hope you've had a productive 2010, and wish you all the best in the new year.To start the year off right, run, don't walk, and sign up for a Google account. Sure, you get free...

Jennifer Eifrig http://musevue360.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=1

To start the year off right, run, don't walk, and sign up for a Google account. Sure, you get free email, free chat, and many other things, but if you work for a history organization, the best thing you get is a Library and the Google eBookstore.

As you know I happen to write fiction, and have been following with some interest the turmoils of the publishing industry, which likes to blames its struggles on the emergence of epublishing, ereaders, ebooks, and every combination thereof. To be honest, I think the publishings powers that be simply have a business model that no longer works, regardless of the status of electronic publishing. Ebooks currently represent well less than 10% of the titles being sold, so clearly they aren't to blame for money troubles. And, until last week, I really couldn't see the advantages of ereaders over print. But in about 10 minutes, I changed my thinking, at least in the arena of historical research. How? I discovered the Google eBookstore.

Love it or hate it, Google is a huge market force that you need to be aware of. And Google has announced a really audacious goal of digitizing every book. That's right, every one. I realize that goal is a moving target, and I imagine Google does too, but dang, they have put a lot of power behind it. And with relatively little fanfare, they've rolled out the eBookstore, which I kind of knew about, but never visited until I stumbled there last week.

Here's the scenario: I am currently working on a project to create a series of "character cards," actual printed cards with a biographic profile on one side and an image on the other. I've spent most of a year tracking down portraits and representative images. Last week I went to the Connecticut State Library with my project director, who is an experienced historical researcher (great place, by the way; I highly recommend it). We found one portrait in a book, but I wanted a digital version, so later that day I looked for it online.

To make a long story short, I wound up at the Google eBookstore. I've known about Google Book editions of historical texts for awhile, but I hadn't realized that Google had gathered them together in the eBookstore. That doesn't sound too amazing, does it? So, why am I trespassing on your valuable time to tell you about it?

Two words: "killer app." For those of you who regularly or occasionally need to search for a historical figure, a name, a family, a place, or pretty much anything, Google has digitized and key worded literally thousands of out-of-copyright historical texts and put them in the eBookstore for free. That's right, $0, zip, nada. And instead of downloading them, you can "purchase" the book and put it in your Library, where you will have access to it from anywhere, forever. That means you can't lose it if your hard drive crashes, or your office burns down, or if you forgot to bring it to a meeting. (This is called "cloud computing," by the way.)

In the course of ten minutes, while I was Google chatting with a friend, I "bought" more than two dozen titles, most of which are quite rare. The Jonathan Trumbull Papers. The Public Records of the State of Connecticut, 1636-1776. The Daughters of the American Revolution Magazine, vol. 12, 1898. Family Letters of Samuel Blatchley Webb. Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, vol. 13, 1911. History of Montville, Connecticut, 1896. Letters of Life by Lydia Howard Sigourney, 1866. Even an article in The Auk, the magazine of the American Orinthological Union, written by my great-grandfather in 1887. And the list goes on....

What's even more remarkable is that each of these epubs in keyword-searchable. So, gone are the days of poring through these books looking for names, places, and dates. I can do it all in Adobe Acrobat in a matter of seconds.

The upshot is, I'm completely hooked. The Google eBookstore is like drugs for the history geek - one try, and you're an addict forever. I'm not sure what this means for the future of research libraries. I mean, I'm proud of my new Connecticut State Library research pass, but I'm not sure how often I'll use it, especially as Google marches forward in its goal to own the written word. I'm also not sure what this means for the future of specialized research training. I'm thinking there will always be a need for a few, highly trained experts, but the power has definitely shifted to the people.

Go check it out, and let me know what you think. I'm predicting you'll be like me - an instant addict. Happy new year!

]]> Flash Fiction on the Page: A New Paradigm for Grant Proposals tag:musevue360.com,2010:/blog//1.24 2010-09-29T13:13:07Z 2010-09-29T14:17:40Z

Yes, it's been far too long, gentle reader. I know. It was a good summer, though. And now, despite the continued warm weather, it's definitely fall, and that means it's time to ponder the upcoming grant proposal season.Most every September...

Jennifer Eifrig http://musevue360.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=1

Most every September since 1991 I have been faced with fall deadlines. This is the last spurt before year-end giving, and also the beginning of the new year's agenda. So, inevitably, there are two or more proposals that have to go in by November 1 or thereabouts. (Really, I have been doing this for almost twenty years. I'm a lot older than I look.) Just last week, I submitted a request, and I've been thinking about how much has changed since I started writing grants.

My very first grant, written when I was 22, was to the Institute of Museum Services (now called IMLS), requesting $150,000 for general operating support. Does any of you remember those grants? They were a nightmare. Twenty-five pages, single-spaced, quarter-inch margins, and you had to use a ruler to make sure your text would fit into the spaces provided for each question. I believe there were something like 20 questions, each of which had point rankings. The grants were supposed to be rewards for good performance, meaning strict adherence to "standards" established by AAM's Accreditation Commissionhttp://www.neh.gov/whoweare/divisions/PreservationAccess/index.html, and were given out to the top point winners until the money ran out. Thus pretty much only the top 1% of museums nationwide ever received a GOS grant. We won't debate whether this was fair or appropriate; the grant program no longer exists in this form, and much has changed in the museum field since then. My point is, these grants were monsters.

I also recall a request to NEH's Preservation and Access Division that ended up being something like 30 pp of text plus more than 100 pp of appendices. Can you imagine? And each of those pages had to be consecutively numbered. Because the appendices were mostly photocopies of other documents, we had to number them by hand. (Quick, write "65" in Roman numerals!) We had to submit something like 20 copies. That's 2,600 pages, or over five reams of paper, which presumably perished in a landfill somewhere.

By contrast, last week I submitted a request in which I was asked to explain the nature of the request, the need, the timetable, and the intended outcomes in 2000 characters including spaces and punctuation. (For those keeping track at home, that's about 75-100 words, max.) The funder kept us all honest by using a PDF with a limited field - once you reached 2000 characters, you couldn't type any more. No tricks with margins or font size. Total paper count: 51.

I also submitted a request online, using a fill-in form. Some of these answers were limited to 20 characters or less, and the heart of the request was limited to three short paragraphs (probably 250 words). Total paper count: 12, and that was only because I always print a file copy. More and more, I'm finding these types of grant proposals are the norm, and the multi-page essays are fast disappearing. I've even had one where I had to summarize the request in 20 words or fewer.

What's changed since the last century? Is it that funders are simply busier, and don't have time to read? I suppose, but my secret belief (well, not so secret anymore!) is that they never read those monster grants, not completely. Maybe the staff did, but not the reviewers. In the case of the GOS grants, I'm certain that they skimmed the narrative, looking for key terms and statistics (relative humidity, number of linear feet, percent of collections on exhibit, percent of collections cataloged, etc.), ranked those, and otherwise relied on the reputation of the requesting institution. What else could they do?

Now, there are definitely those that descry the sea change. They struggle to craft a beautiful grant narrative, and feel disheartened when they can't possibly do justice to their request in 2000 characters (that grant was a challenge, believe me). I remember someone wailing to me, not that long ago, about a grant narrative being limited to seven pages: "Seven pages! I haven't even warmed up in seven pages!" (Seven pages single-spaced is roughly 5,000 words, by the way.) Or, they write too much, and try to edit down to fit, and feel unsatisfied with the result.

Remember what I said about flash fiction? It's extremely brief, 50-1000 words, and must contain all the elements of a complete story: a protagonist, a conflict, and a discernible plot that leads to an outcome or resolution. Every word advances the story; there is no need or space for "throwaways." These new grant proposals are essentially "flash exposition": an agency, faced with a need, is trying to benefit a certain audience or clientele in order to achieve some end. I've become a proponent of this approach. If I can't sum up the grant proposal in a single sentence, answering 1) who we are, 2) what we need, 3) for whom, and 4) what we plan to accomplish, I haven't thought through the request enough yet. And I'm incredibly thankful that I took a course at the local community college that covered flash fiction!

Is the novel gone as an art form? No. But I do feel that the 20-page grant proposal is a dinosaur. I'd encourage all the grant writers out there (and that's pretty much everyone these days, isn't it?) to embrace the new paradigm: rather than "start long, cut to short," start short, and stay short. I've gotten as much money from a three-sentence letter as I have from a multi-page proposal, on numerous occasions.

Is it hard? Damn straight. Is it different? Yes, it's exercising a different perspective on writing. Is it worth the effort? Definitely. I'm going to predict that we don't have a lot of choice here. I submit about 2-5 grants per month these days. The new paradigm is here to stay.

'Nuff said. Good luck, everybody!

]]> Flash Fiction on the Wall: The Craft of Exhibit Labels tag:musevue360.com,2010:/blog//1.23 2010-05-11T01:12:40Z 2010-10-26T17:54:17Z

You know by now that I am a geek, an English major, a technophile, and an increasingly passionate advocate for nonprofit social networking. I am an independent consultant; I'm also a mom. But what am I really, in the essence...

Jennifer Eifrig http://musevue360.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=1

I've actually written four novels, but the first three I don't choose to recall except perhaps in bad nightmares (no, you can't find them on the Web!). The fourth I'm quite proud of, and am currently pitching for publication. I've started on the sequel, too.

I recently took a class called, "Get Published: From Pen to Paper" that purported to teach me the mysterious ways of the publishing world and hopefully increase my chances of landing the elusive book deal. Part of the class was devoted to writing exercises, which are like other forms of exercise (read, "hard work"), and we avoid them just as much. I thought, "I write all the time, probably 1,000 words a day or more, so why should I need to exercise?"

At the same time, I was working on a project to reinterpret the Governor Jonathan Trumbull War Office in Lebanon, CT. It's a tiny museum with an enormously important story. The client wanted some kind of interpretive panels on the wall (more on that in another post) that provided a baseline story, but did not distract from the recreated interiors and reproduction artifacts (again, more on that later). Our original plan was three 38"x48" panels with 500 words each. By museum standards, that's not a lot of text.

But then I discovered flash fiction, the art and craft of telling a complete story (protagonist, conflict, and resolution) in 6-500 words. In class, we were working on the low end of that scale, 20-150 words. Dang, was that hard. I'm still not good at it - my novel is nearly 160,000 words - but over the course of the class I started to see an effect not just on my fiction but my professional writing as well.

Remember those exhibit panels? I reduced one of them by 90%. It went from three 80-word paragraphs to one paragraph of 60 words. Wow. The others slimmed down, too. I think we probably have a total of 600 words on the wall now, maybe less. With some great pictures, they look fabulous.

Here's the point: writing exhibit labels should be exactly like writing a short story. The emphasis should be on narrative, rather than fact, centered on a key individual or group of real people, with conflict and outcome. Too often we in the museum business try to "educate" or "inform" the visitor. Look, they're at our museums for fun! They want to be entertained and engaged; they want to know the people from the past in the same way they get to know a character in a story. Just like the fiction writer, we need to show, not tell.

Show, not tell.

See? It works. Come to the exhibit opening on June 12, 2010 and you can see for yourself!

]]> Giving Out to Get Back, Or, The Karma of Blogging tag:musevue360.com,2010:/blog//1.22 2010-04-08T15:18:11Z 2010-04-08T17:47:25Z

So, how are you doing on your resolution to finally keep up with this social media thing?I'm behind, of course, but the spring is always busy. However, I wanted to share a story with you that might convince you of...

Jennifer Eifrig http://musevue360.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=1

I'm behind, of course, but the spring is always busy. However, I wanted to share a story with you that might convince you of the value of investing time in blogging.

Let's face it: blogging is the most time-intensive form of Web 2.0/3.0 content generation there is. Facebook, Flickr, and Twitter are pretty quick. (That's part of the reason why I recommend Facebook if you do nothing else.) I've talked to professional P.R. and media consultants, and they all roll their eyes when it comes to finding the time to blog. Why? Despite the huge proliferation of word-based media, writing is still darned hard.

1. It takes uninterrupted time (who has that?)

2. You have to have something to say.

3. You have to make yourself do it, rather than anything else.

Now, I'm an English major, as you know. I've completed a 160,000 word novel, and have started on the second. I frequently write 10-pp grants in one or two days. So if I find blogging challenging, you can be it actually is. So ease up on yourself a bit about that.

Here's why you need to blog: A couple of weeks ago, I received an email from a colleague with whom I worked on a project two jobs and seven years ago. I hear from him once or twice a year via LinkedIn, and that's about it. But he needed help with a major client, and came to me, saying, "I read your whole blog, and you're the person we need to talk with." I did, and we had a great conversation, and there may be some future collaborations.

Now, I didn't realize my colleague had been reading my blog, but clearly it was a major factor in why he approached me for the project. Interestingly, it wasn't the specific topical content of each of my entries that convinced him. It was more that he had insight into how I think and work. (Remember that point; we'll be coming back to it.)

So, let's deal with the three reasons we all have difficulty blogging.

1. Uninterrupted time. I get this one - I have small children, remember? Frequently I can't even get in the shower or use the bathroom without a visitor. Fortunately, there are physical solutions. Turn off the phone (OMG! OMG! OMG!). Or at least, put it on silent. That's why you have voicemail, after all. Don't answer your email - for half an hour. Shut the door if you have one.

2. Something to say. Another colleague of mine recently remarked, "Whenever I start a project, I have to remind myself that my first ideas aren't sh---y." I laughed, but I know what he means. It's very easy to think that one is called upon to come up with an idea as revolutionary as string theory or Keynesian economics, and to feel entirely unequal to the task. Truth is, there isn't a lot that's new under the sun anyway. Blogging is about being authentic, rather than authoritative. Remember my story above? I didn't get the call because my blog entries deserve to be recorded as part of the greats of Western literature. I got the call because they were enough to convince my colleague that I was smart and likeable. So take a little idea and run with it. That's enough.

3. Making yourself do it. This is hard if you're an avoidance person. But blogging is actually a lot of fun, when you loosen up and use your authentic (see above), real voice. I tend to blog without editing, other than a quick spell check and read-through to be sure I've caught typos and stupid errors. Schedule in the time if you have to. Just do it.

My larger point is that good blogging is basically giving out free advice to your clients and customers. If you come across an interesting article, have a great idea in the shower, or hear something in passing, chances are the people you work with and/or serve would like to know, too. The more you give out, the more likely you are to get back. Quality counts, too, but the first step is simply to do it. It's karma.

So get out there and have fun! Can't wait to hear from you.

]]> New Media and the One-Person Non-Profit Shop Dilemma, Part 2 tag:musevue360.com,2010:/blog//1.21 2010-02-12T19:00:28Z 2010-02-12T19:32:57Z

OK, see, I get it! It's been a LONG time since my last entry. Why? I got busy, of course.Let's tally up my excuses:3 grants due November 15ThanksgivingKids1 grant due December 1BronchitisTotaled my car (oops)KidsChristmasKidsPlaying catch up in January5 grants...

Jennifer Eifrig http://musevue360.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=1

Let's tally up my excuses:

3 grants due November 15

Thanksgiving

Kids

1 grant due December 1

Bronchitis

Totaled my car (oops)

Kids

Christmas

Kids

Playing catch up in January

5 grants due in February (four done, one to go)

That's a pretty full list. Any of it sound familiar? We in the small shop have a lot to do, and of course we all still have family obligations as well. And yet, we KNOW perfectly well that we have to find the time to blog, to update our profile on Facebook, launch an email newsletter, and maybe even tweet.

So, now that we're well into the new year, let's make a resolution together: somehow, we are going to find the time to do this new media thing. Here are my thoughts on how those of us who are always trying to do a million things at once can manage.

1. Set achievable goals. I started out thinking I would be able to blog weekly. You've seen how well that's worked for me! Instead, I am going to set a goal of monthly posts, with more frequent updates on Facebook. Instead of trying to find an hour a week, find ten minutes.

2. Schedule the time for new media, just as you would any other appointment or task. I'm starting to think that this stuff is as important, maybe more so, than some of the tasks that we've always considered essential. Yes, you still need to work on that grant, but maybe you don't need to do something else.

3. Pick what's going to work for you and your audiences. You don't have to do everything. If you're trying to decide where to start, I'd suggest a Facebook page for your nonprofit. It's free, and doesn't take much time to set up. Also, every page looks pretty much the same, so you don't have to worry about competing on design and "flash." Your board will be impressed, and you can decide where to do from there.

4. Do less with less. If you have scarce time and resources, you can't do more. You need to cut back. Sounds obvious, but somehow we've all fallen into this belief that somehow we can achieve more with the same resources. The U.S. government reports huge growth in corporate productivity in December 2009. That means that people in the workforce are being pushed about as hard as they can be. I'm sure you can relate. From the "non-essentials" list that you created from Part 1 of this post, pick one thing to drop. There's your 10 minutes to work on new media.

5. Find some part of new media that you enjoy, and make it a priority. This is one I have to remember myself! Somehow we always manage to find the time to do things that we enjoy, whether it's working with clients, talking with donors, checking our email, or watching TV. If you resent a task, you won't push to get it done.

I have some other thoughts, too, mostly having to do with mobile devices and the role that they will play in our work... but I'm saving that for next month. Really. I promise.

]]> New Media and the One-Person Non-Profit Shop Dilemma, Part 1 tag:musevue360.com,2009:/blog//1.20 2009-11-05T20:16:33Z 2009-11-05T20:58:31Z

Okay, yes, it's been awhile since my last entry. What's my excuse? I've been busy, of course. And in thinking about that, it occurred to me many of you out there are in exactly the same position I am: you...

Jennifer Eifrig http://musevue360.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=1 know you should be blogging, emailing, tweeting, etc. but you think, "Yeah right. Who's got the time? I'm already trying to do it all. How can I possibly add one more thing to my to-do list?"

Well, you do have a valid point. In my "other" (non-professional) life I'm a mom of two kids aged 4-1/2 and almost-2. Just getting them fed, dressed, and where they need to be everyday is an exercise in minute-by-minute time management. I know I'm not alone; we all have families of one kind or another and multiple demands on our time. Throw in a job and - whoa! It's crazy.

In the case of many non-profits, there is only one paid staff person, or maybe only one full-time person, and he or she is often only (technically) part-time. What I've found as a consultant is that it's harder to manage part-time work than full-time work. (For those of you full-timers who are currently scoffing, I say: walk a mile in our moccasins sometime.) Look at it this way: we only get paid so much for a certain number of hours, but sometimes things take longer than expected (I call it "project creep"), and often there is no set schedule of when you are "on the clock" and when you aren't. It's hard to say to a board chairperson, "I'm sorry, it's Tuesday so I can't talk to you until tomorrow," or, "I'm sorry that the roof is leaking, but I've already gone through my hours this week," or, "Yes, that's a great funding opportunity but it's too bad the proposal is due on a Friday because I don't work Fridays."

So there you are, lonely non-profit staffer, incredibly well-intentioned but already hopelessly behind, and here I come along saying, "If you haven't jumped into new media to promote your non-profit you'd better do it quick or risk being left behind." And it's not just me: check out this issue of Guidestar's monthly email newsletter (you'll have to create a login but it's free). What do you do? Do you cover your ears and run into a corner (very tempting sometimes, I know)?

I wouldn't advise that option. First, take a deep breath. Ok, now let's talk. We're dealing with two givens here: on the one hand, you already have way too much to do; on the other, I'm telling you you've got to jump into this pool at some point. Impassable dilemma? I hope not.

It's true that you probably cannot add more to your workload. Whenever you're doing one thing you're not doing something else (probably many things, actually). So the answer to how you fit new media into your workload is simple, really: you have to give up doing something else.

"But but but" I can hear you (and your board?) stammer. "Everything we do is important and critical." Is it really? Now is a great time to look hard at what you are spending precious staff hours on, and to sort those things into boxes labeled, "Critical - we would close down without it," "Important to somebody," "We have no choice, we have to spend time on this because...." and "We've been doing this pretty much forever." Notice that I didn't ask you to evaluate the efficacy of the activities. We'll talk about that later.

Now, sort out the same list of activities, only this time label them by audience - who is benefiting? Clients/audience, board, staff (paid and volunteer), and whomever else.

Finally, sort the same list into two categories: those activities that directly support your non-profit's bottom line, and those that don't.

You'll end up with a small handful, maybe two or three things that emerge as absolutely non-negotiable top priorities. Are "communicating with donors, raising funds, and providing direct services to our clients" on that list? Probably. And these are all activities that new media can help you with.

What about the rest? Can you give up doing something, or do it in a simpler way, in order to allow yourself more time on the mission critical stuff?

All right, I feel your pain at this point. You go do what you need to do, and come back soon for Part 2 of this post.

]]> Entering the Fray: Non-Profits and the Healthcare Debate tag:musevue360.com,2009:/blog//1.19 2009-09-04T18:25:04Z 2009-09-04T18:51:02Z

Okay, so I know I'm taking my life in my hands on this one, but I think it's time I say something about the issue of healthcare, since everyone else seems to be doing it too. Let me begin with...

Jennifer Eifrig http://musevue360.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=1

Okay, so I know I'm taking my life in my hands on this one, but I think it's time I say something about the issue of healthcare, since everyone else seems to be doing it too. Let me begin with the usual disclaimers: I'm no healthcare policy expert; I'm not trying to get tons of flame emails; yada, yada. But here goes.

When I was a non-profit executive director (yes, I was) the absolute WORST, bar none, part of my job was the annual negotiation of the health insurance package. Now, my agency actually had - woo hoo - six, count e'm, six employees paid to work 30 hours a week who could thus qualify to be on our plan. I know many, many non-profits who have far fewer than that. Our group, however, was so small that our rates were astronomically high. You see the law in the State of Connecticut essentially required any insurance company that wished to sell health insurance in CT to offer small group policies. Sounds good, right? Wrong! The giveback to the industry was that the small group rates were set by the Insurance Commissioner, and so there was no meaningful competition. Every year I would have our agent shop around, and every year the rates were within pennies of each other. And, the increases from year to year were huge: 22% one year, 15% the next, 20% the next, etc. My employees complained bitterly, especially since the agency could not afford to contribute much to the cost. The staff bore the full brunt, essentially. At one point, I had a staff member who was paying over $900/mo for a family plan WITH A $10,000 OUT OF POCKET DEDUCTIBLE. Her take home was around $400/mo after insurance. Her family basically had to pay $20,000 a year before anything was covered. And this was five years ago. Can you imagine what it would be now?

I've been listening a little to the healthcare debate, and rarely does this issue come up. People talk about employer-based insurance a lot, and they either don't realize or don't seem to care that many, many non-profit employees don't have ANY option from their employers, because the agency is too small and/or too poor to offer it. Many non-profits treat their staff as contractors for this reason. Giving tax breaks for offering health insurance doesn't apply to non-profits either.

So, whatever side of the debate you're on, just remember that there is a significant and very valuable component of our society out there - the non-profit workforce - that I suspect is very underserved by the health care system. Remember them, and let's see what we can do to help them.

]]> Arts & Culture vs. Human Services: The Smackdown tag:musevue360.com,2009:/blog//1.18 2009-08-20T19:42:20Z 2009-08-20T20:26:28Z

So, many of you know that my career has mostly been spent working with arts and culture nonprofits, particularly museums and historical societies. Only recently (within that past six months) have I had more regular contact with human and social...

Jennifer Eifrig http://musevue360.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=1

There is one notable exception however, and that is the area of grant proposals. To wit: I am currently working on a proposal for an historical society to request $2500. The narrative so far stands at eleven single-spaced pages, plus attachments, and the program officer is asking for more. It's taken me about 12 hours of consulting time so far, and will probably come to 15-20 hrs altogether. At the same time, I just finished a proposal for a social service agency requesting $5000; it was a three-page fill-in form plus attachments. It took about 8 hrs of consulting time all told. The first proposal will need six copies, and the second just two.

So what's the point? Simply this: the arts & culture field is too much in the habit of making long and torturous arguments in order to convey concepts such as objectives and impact. In the human and social service arena, things are more concrete, direct, and outcome-focused. Part of the reason is obvious: it's very hard to quantify the impact a museum program has on its participants, for example. We can't hold a yardstick to someone's head and determine that they are smarter going out than when they came in, whereas a soup kitchen can count the meals provided. However, I've learned that social service agencies don't necessarily quantify results either. Desired impacts can be much more nuanced than simply the numbers of people served, and focused on goals that apply to broader society. The difference is, these kinds of agencies are 1) more comfortable with the whole idea of describing impact, and 2) are quite good at expressing succinctly what it is they do, whom they do it for, and how it makes the world a better place. Apparently, the funders who are receptive to their requests know this, and construct their applications accordingly.

I think the human service agencies have a real competitive advantage in this respect, and I suggest that arts & culture organizations become much more comfortable with thinking of themselves as outcomes-driven. Really, it's not that bad. I guess the reluctance has been due to the fact that when one starts discussing the actual impact of the museum or historical society on its audiences and broader society, the question inevitably arises, "Are we actually making an impact at all?" I've been in board rooms when that question comes up, and everyone says, "Yes, of course," but then no one can articulate the impact. This is a major warning bell for the long-term survival of your institution.

There are ways to pick apart that question in order to tease out the answer. They start with truly understanding what the organization's current market identity is, and what its unique competitive advantage is - what I call the essential difference. Have you thought about this? I'd love to hear from you.

]]> Everything That's Old is New Again - Maybe tag:musevue360.com,2009:/blog//1.17 2009-06-25T15:20:41Z 2009-06-25T15:52:02Z

Or not. I haven't decided yet.Yesterday a catalog of children's clothing arrived in my mail. It was full of back-to-school buys and that was all expected, but what I was surprised by was how old-fashioned the clothes were. Jumpers. Cadigan...

Jennifer Eifrig http://musevue360.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=1

Yesterday a catalog of children's clothing arrived in my mail. It was full of back-to-school buys and that was all expected, but what I was surprised by was how old-fashioned the clothes were. Jumpers. Cadigan sweaters. Knee socks. Mary Janes. Rugby shirts. Pleated skirts. In short, the whole thing looked like a maroon and navy Dick and Jane book.

Interesting, I said to myself. For some time, I've noticed society at large going kind of retro. In 2007-2008 it was like living through the 1970s again. I half expected macrame to make a comeback. Now, in 2009 it's feeling even older. I told you I've taken up sewing in a big way, and a trip to WalMart the other deal revealed that I'm not the only one. What are popular projects? Aprons, of all things, done up in faux 1940s print cottons with ruffles and tight waists. Just the right thing to can your own peaches in or make your own apple pie.

Let's cut to the chase: my thought is that we're trying to recapture some kind of sense of American identity that's associated with thrift, endurance, and focus. I don't believe that we're recreating the 1930s and 1940s in all their details, however - we're proud of the fact that we have an African American president, for example, something that would have been unimaginable then. And of course we're buying smart phones by the zillions and spending way too much time on Facebook. No, we're retooling old concepts in the form of aesthetics, I think.

Does this mean that history and heritage organizations have a new lease on life? Maybe, if they managed to tap into this zeitgeist I'm talking about, and somehow reinvent themselves as "retro" rather than simply old-fashioned. I think they ought to figure out how to attract the kids dressed in those jumpers and rugby shirts, and with them their parents. That's a tricky proposition, of course, and the danger is that this is a short-lived fad. However, I'm intrigued enough that I'm going to keep tabs on this phenomenon and will report back periodically.

If you have you're own thoughts, please let me know!

]]> The Power of Mission (Once Again) tag:musevue360.com,2009:/blog//1.16 2009-06-19T19:45:50Z 2009-06-19T20:06:14Z

Today I worked with a great group of board members of a lineal descendant society that owns a 300+-year-old farmstead. They called me in to help them refine their mission statement, feeling that it didn't accurately reflect who they actually...

Jennifer Eifrig http://musevue360.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=1

Sure, I said. I can help. Mission development happens to be a favorite gig of mine. People are usually pretty positive and eager to be energized. It's great fun when I can help them pull together a few words and bam! all of a sudden they have a focus for the future.

For the past six months, people have been wondering if the current economic downturn is the same or different from anything we've seen in the past. In other words, is this a "business cycle dip" or the next Great Depression? I've told folks that I don't know the answer, only that these times we're in don't feel like anything I've been through in the nonprofit business, and I've been doing this since 1991. But I'm starting to have some glimmers of understanding.

First, mission is essential. We've always said that, right? But mission has come to mean more than just a clean, catchy mission statement. It means offering unique services of value to specific people who will be effected positively in specific ways. It means impact as well as outcomes. You've gotta answer the question, "And why should I care?"

Second, expansion is not the road to sustainability. There is a lot of overlap and duplication in the nonprofit community; this is not good, especially in a sector that doesn't like to talk about competition. If we try to expand and drive another group out of business, we may in fact succeed in killing ourselves as well. The name of the game now is focus, focus, focus.

Lastly, we have to figure out how to keep going effectively, not simply limping along with less. We have to be ready to cut loose whatever's dragging us down, and really, really, really be willing to accept change and roll with it. Darn, that's hard. But it can also be fun.

My group this morning went from a passive, safe, secure, and very private mission statement to one that "opens the door of the house," to quote one board member. Now they're free to walk outside and look around. While I was leaving they were actually cheering - not for me, but for all the hard work they had done, and about the prospect of a brighter future that they have control over.

I was so inspired that I knew I had to formulate our own mission statement, so here it is:

Musevue360 helps nonprofits think critically, plan effectively, and achieve lasting results.

What do you think? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

]]> The Benefits of the Day Off tag:musevue360.com,2009:/blog//1.15 2009-05-19T17:53:51Z 2009-05-19T18:51:00Z

Last night my two daughters, aged 4 and 1-1/2, woke me up no fewer than EIGHT times. On six of those occasions I had to drag myself out of bed and calm down somebody who was screaming, crying, or both....

Jennifer Eifrig http://musevue360.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=1

Naturally, when I woke up for the ninth time and had to face a workday I was exhausted. I had two grants due last week, two due the week before that, an all-day planning session over the weekend, four final reports due by June 1, and a whole list of household issues that needed attending. I spent part of yesterday in the hospital with a seriously ill relative. In other words, stick a fork in me; I was DONE.

Now, normally I'm a "press on regardless" type, but today my mind and body went on strike. I simply could not dredge up the mental energy and concentration needed to get started on those reports. In one of those rare moments of perfect clarity, I realized that I had to come up with Another Plan.

So today I gave myself permission to work on the nagging little things that have been piling up. I called a preschool to line up a visit. I registered the girls for summer swim lessons. I entered invoices into Quickbooks. I did laundry. I deadheaded the petunias. I finished my last blog entry (was it really a month ago? oh my). Shortly I will take a nap.

And I feel about 100% better for it. I know that tomorrow I'll be able to tackle those final reports with a new degree of enthusiasm and creativity because I was able to rest, regroup, and accomplish some small but meaningful milestones. The moral here is that more work isn't always the best way to achieve results.

Can you take a "day off" from the major worries that are plaguing your nonprofit, and maybe give some attention to the details that have been nagging and tormenting you? Success is one of life's most restorative experiences, even if it's in the little things. In fact those little things can be diverting you from focusing on some larger question. Get them done, or at least dealt with, and you might just restore your equilibrium in time for a brilliant insight into the big issues.

Please tell me about your experiences playing "hookey." I'd love to hear from you.

]]> Sustainability vs. Success tag:musevue360.com,2009:/blog//1.14 2009-04-13T15:22:26Z 2009-05-19T17:53:20Z

I recently read a very good entry on the Museums 2.0 blog in which the author discusses the pitfalls of achieving sustainability. Now, every nonprofit I that I'm working with has included sustainability in their list of goals to achieve. I'm sure...

Jennifer Eifrig http://musevue360.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=1 entry on the Museums 2.0 blog in

which the author discusses the pitfalls of achieving sustainability. Now, every nonprofit I that I'm working with has included sustainability in their list of goals to achieve. I'm sure yours probably has, too.

Why is this? Well, sustainability sounds virtuous in its own right. If we're "sustainable," the implication is that we don't have to cater to the whims of scrutinizing donors, or fall prey to the periodic undulations of the stock market index, or worry about fewer people buying our product. Sustainability hearkens a bit to the old Gilded Age mentality of "pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps," or in slightly more contemporary parlance, "making it on our own." Doesn't that just sound All-American, complete with flag and apple pie?

In the blog post I mentioned, the author says that museums too often mistake sustainability for success. It's somehow enough to limp along on an endless journey, rather than sprinting to a finish line. That which does not kill us makes us stronger, but it can also make us tired, bored, bitter, cranky, and resentful.

You see, I have this idea that perhaps we as nonprofit leaders are deep down slightly embarrassed or ashamed that our business models are fundamentally built on welfare. The handout. The free ride. Perhaps the constantly pleading for funds that every nonprofit is required to make is somehow, somewhere inwardly humiliating. After all, the (occasionally demonized) for-profit world is required to sell or die. Quite simple, really, and there's no pang of guilt when a better product comes along.

So we (the nonprofits) try to salve our own wounded pride by making sustainability a goal. After all, we like our jobs. We want them to last. We have families with expenses just like everyone else. And again, we really, really like our jobs. Of course, we want to be there for our communities too, doing important, needed things for the greater good. If we can just achieve the elusive "sustainability" benchmark, people will admire and respect us, and maybe those pesky, inquisitive donors won't ask us so many questions about our programs.

But, is sustainability the same thing as success? I don't think it is. Success is achieving your mission in the best way possible. For many museums as well as many nonprofits, true "sustainability" is an unachievable goal, because it's a rare program offering that truly pays for itself. Most programs require periodic infusions of cash in the form of gifts and grants.

And that's ok. I'm here to say that donors, both organizational and individual, really want to help and feel that they're making a difference in the world. We as nonprofits exist as much to enable their philanthropy as to serve our customers. More effective than pursuing "sustainability," I think, is for museums and nonprofits to instead pursue entrepreneurism. In other words, seek the funding where you can get and for what you can get it, without qualms. Ask for the amount you need, and be prepared to explain what the outcomes and impact will be. Don't hesitate to shut down programs that are no longer performing up to expectations, even if they are long established or popular with certain constituencies - if they don't advance your vision for the organization, they're dragging you down rather than helping. And finally, be prepared to accept that your organization may have a life cycle that's drawing to a close. It can be hard to let go, but it's much better for something new and exciting to be born from the ashes than to hang onto something old and tired.

Thoughts, anyone? Let me know.

]]> DIY or Not? tag:musevue360.com,2009:/blog//1.13 2009-04-06T18:59:57Z 2009-04-06T20:03:38Z

Hello from a long hiatus of entries! My apologies for the gap; we were experiencing technical difficulties all around, meaning I've been sick and various computer-related issues have cropped up. But enough of that. Let's talk about your nonprofit.A...

Jennifer Eifrig http://musevue360.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=1

A question that nonprofit organizations frequently ask, or ask themselves, is, "Do we really need to hire outside expertise for XYZ project? Can we do it ourselves faster, better, and more cheaply?"

That's a really great question - and the answer is, "It depends." (I wish I had a nickel for every time I've said that!") Basically, opting to DIY or not is matter of making choices. These can be simplified into the following series of questions:

Do you have a lot of time? If so, then you may wish to explore doing it yourself. If you're in a hurry, employing outside expertise may be the best way to maximize efficiency. Be aware, however, that the process of locating the right people to help you also takes time, and if you're right on deadline, doing it yourself may be your only option.

Do you have the needed skill set on staff (including your volunteer pool)? Here I mean the people who really know what they're doing, who have the necessary training and temperament for the job. If not, how difficult is it to bring the people you do have at your disposal up to speed? If you need technical or legal expertise that isn't on staff, stop here and go hire someone. The same is true with trade skills such as plumbing and electrical work. It doesn't pay to mess around with legal liability, health and safety issues, or other critical areas (such as technology) if you aren't really sure of what you're doing.

Do you have or can you find the financial resources needed to hire outside professionals? You may be surprised to find that this isn't the first question to ask. The reason is that your top goal should be getting the job done, rather than saving money. I'm assuming that this project, whatever it is, is strategic and important. If it's not, forget about it for now. Your resources of time, energy, and funding are too stretched already to be thinking of "wouldn't it be nice" projects. If you don't have the money on hand to hire someone, finding it may be easier than you think. Most funders understand the need bring in expertise, and you may have the makings of a great grant request here.

Are you willing to compromise on quality, redirect resources from other projects, buy needed tools, and/or put in extra effort to make the project happen in-house? The graphic above effectively illustrates the kinds of choices that you may have to make in order to be successful doing something yourself. If you need satisfactory but not outstanding results, by all means consider doing it yourself. Do you have staff that are underutilized? They may be very happy to learn new skills and take on new responsibilities. Do you simply need to buy some special software or other equipment that you will use regularly? These may be good investments in the long run. On the other hand, it's not smart to buy expensive tools that you're only going to use once.

Finally, could your project benefit from a second opinion? There's a reason why doctors aren't supposed to treat themselves or their family members. Being too close to something can limit your perspective and impair your judgement. Sometimes what your project really needs to be successful is an outside viewpoint, even more than a specialized skill set. It's near impossible, for example, for an executive director to successfully lead an organizational assessment. He or she is simply too wrapped up in daily concerns, occasional disagreements with the staff or board, and a personal agenda to be able to truly step back.

Now, I now what you're thinking - I'm the consultant, of course I'm going to say hire someone from the outside! In many cases, such as those I've outlined about, doing that is the best option. In others, DIY is the way to go and I will tell you so. My goal is to help you make the smartest decision given your individual circumstances. There is no "one" right choice,

Have you had experience with DIY consulting? I'd love to hear about it, and your fellow readers would too. Please share your story with us, and thanks!

]]>