Chris Anderson’s “Long Tail”, as a concept, exists in the world of non-profits too. And I’m right IN it!
This morning, I was reading Beth Kanter’s post on how to leverage non-profits on Twitter, and saw that Twitter (the social media network with several million users) was now featuring a list of “suggested users” – and it includes many of the same ‘familiar names’.
Kiva. Acumen Fund. Room to Read. And more.
These are the ’short tail’ best-sellers, celebrities, wunderkids of the non-profit world.
Yes, they do phenomenal good work and deserve to be looked up to, promoted, even glorified.
But there’s also the long tail.
And there, silently, unrecognized (but craving some too), toil millions of ‘difference makers’ – each fueled by a unique, special dream, working to make it come true and make a better world.
Just like in any other sphere, trying to make it to the ’short tail’ A-list is tough in the non-profit world. And, I tend to agree with Beth in thinking it really isn’t necessary always… as long as you have the right kind of people in your short-tail audience.
Passionate enthusiasts. Loyal supporters. Caring, generous donors.
I’ve read the stories of how many non-profit founders got started. John Wood (of Room to Read) wrote “Leaving Microsoft To Change The World”, Greg Mortenson (of Central Asia Institute) wrote “3 Cups of Tea”, and Dr.Paul Farmer (of Partners In Health) is the hero of Tracy Kidder’s “Mountains Beyond Mountains”.
All of them worked quietly in the ‘long tail’ – until circumstance, time and serendipity launched them to the top, giving their worthy missions greater visibility and the chance to make a bigger impact.
My own non-profit work got a quantum boost 5 years back when John Reese mentioned it after his groundbreaking “Million Dollar Day” – and contributed $10,000 to the Dr.Mani Children Heart Foundation. That was one turning point which raised visibility and extended the reach and impact of my work, which has now helped to heal 52 little hearts.
Which brings me to an existential dilemma of non-profit decision-makers… Should one strive to try and hit that sweet spot where greater reach allows bigger impact? Or keep on keeping on, not caring much about it, knowing the chances of it happening incidentally are on par with winning the lottery?
It’s like a passionate, talented, determined writer who pens a great novel – and then faces a choice of selling it agressively to try and make it on to the best-seller lists – or to relish the satisfaction that comes from creativity unleashed, and let things take their course, naturally.
My personal thoughts and feelings on this issue swing wildly from one extreme to the other at different times. Right now, I’m inclined to accept being in the ‘long tail’ and focusing all attention, time and effort to doing the work I’ve chosen to.
But who can say how that’ll change later, when Twitter’s “suggested users” bask in the limelight and are able to do so much more than I could hope to while languishing in the long tail?
How do you feel about this?
And on a more controversial note, should Twitter’s “suggested list” AVOID adding the ‘usual suspects’ – and focus instead on giving some of those ‘long tail non-profits’ their once-in-a-lifetime shot at becoming so much bigger than they could ever have hoped to before?
How do you vote on this question?
{ 0 comments }
