• DC

    The language and direction of this article remind me of somebody I worked with a few decades ago organizing a women’s conference on occupational safety and health. She, from one of the big universities on the coast used the term ‘sexy’ as the measure of some outreach effort, or communications effectiveness. ‘Sexy’ is a variant on ‘candy’; If you want a child to do something you tantalize them with candy.
    This article strikes me as looking for a ‘sexy’ way or a ‘sweet’ way to tantalize a younger generation into supporting some program without actually explaining why the program/project is needed. I’ve found this to be true of younger people I’ve worked with in community service and public policy. Apparently having the skills of a ‘used car salesman’ is part of keeping nonprofits going. Sad that programs/projects are not being explained: the need, the goals, methodologies and values underlying the methodologies.

  • Thanks for sharing Lauren’s post here, John. And, in response to your question at the end of the piece, I agree that a “both/and” approach is a good strategy. “Disruption” shakes things up– but it doesn’t require ignoring any segment completely.

    Here’s what I see shaking up the sector: proliferation of mobile (across all demographics), paired with user expectations set by the likes of Apple, Google, Facebook, etc,. While I don’t think that causes need to focus on developing shiny, sexy, latest-app-kind-of-things –it is in everyone’s best interest to understand how new technology ( be it social media, mobile, SMS, gamification, virtual meetings….) is being used by consumers (read: donors) and how it may help them to connect in more meaningful ways. When 72% of giving comes from individuals, I’d consider it vital business intelligence.