Shannon Watts is a juggernaut on Twitter. A dozen years after joining the social-media platform, the founder of the gun-safety group Moms Demand Action has tweeted or retweeted more than 171,000 times and amassed nearly 600,000 followers.
Each day, she delivers a digital gusher of gun-violence news, shout-outs to allies, and zingers aimed at foes. She also directs the occasional Tweet bomb at one of the richest people in the world. “Elon Musk’s favorite pastime: sexism against women lawmakers who haven’t gone through menopause and ageism against those who have. F—- gross,” she tweeted last year.
Yet nearly seven months after the Tesla and SpaceX billionaire purchased Twitter, Watts, a former public-relations executive, continues to use Musk’s platform. On a recent Sunday morning, she tweeted or retweeted posts more than a dozen times before noon.
Watts is an example of the nonprofit world’s awkward embrace of the social-media platform that critics argue is a cesspool. Analyses by the Anti-Defamation League, the Washington Post, and others point to a rise in extremism, racism, violent threats, and misinformation since Musk bought the company in October. Yet the vast majority of nonprofits have yet to kick their tweet habit.
Almost all the groups on the Forbes list of the 100 largest charitable organizations remain regulars on Twitter — only six have suspended activity on the platform, according to a Chronicle analysis. (The Midwest Food Bank does not have a Twitter account.) Observers also say relatively few small groups have stepped away.
Among the 10 foundations with the most assets, only the David and Lucile Packard and Silicon Valley Community foundations have stopped tweeting. (The Lilly Endowment, the second largest, doesn’t manage any social-media accounts, according to a spokeswoman.) Many key national nonprofit-support organizations remain on Twitter as well, including Independent Sector, Candid, the National Council of Nonprofits, and the Center for Effective Philanthropy.
Although there has not been a mass exodus from the site, groups are using Twitter less frequently and investing more time and resources on LinkedIn and Instagram, according to nonprofit leaders and communications experts. Many have drawn the line at adding to the company’s coffers by purchasing ads or promoted content.
The question of whether to leave altogether is taking on fresh urgency, however. Last week, NPR and PBS, which are partially publicly funded, halted their tweets after Twitter labeled their accounts “state-affiliated media.” (Twitter since has changed the tag to “government-funded media.”)
“We will not put our journalism on platforms that have demonstrated an interest in undermining our credibility and the public’s understanding of editorial independence,” NPR chief executive John Lansing said in an email to supporters.
Also, a key deadline looms: According to Musk, the company will soon finish conversion of its free “blue checkmark” identity-verification system to a paid subscription. Any individual or organization that hasn’t signed up by Thursday will be stripped of the checkmark badge. The monthly subscription price options for nonprofits: $8 for the blue checkmark, which is also available to individuals, and $1,000 for the gold checkmark reserved for organizations and businesses.
The subscription fee may represent a tipping point for groups doing a cost-benefit analysis of their Twitter presence, says Andrew Sherry, a former communications executive at the Knight Foundation and the Center for American Progress. Organizations don’t want to contribute to Twitter’s bottom line, but without a verification checkmark, traffic to their feed will likely fall.
“The needle,” Sherry says, “is moving from positive to negative.”
‘Really, Really Hateful’
When Musk bought Twitter, many groups groaned but adopted a “wait and see” approach. “Taking a break from Twitter — will be back if things change and if election-denying autocrats are kicked off again,” tweeted Phil Buchanan, president of the Center for Effective Philanthropy, in November. The organization also paused its account.
A few groups eventually concluded that a presence on Twitter clashed with their mission as a nonprofit. When the Silicon Valley Community Foundation called a halt to its tweets in December, it said, “The platform’s tacit acceptance of hate speech and lack of regulation around it do not align with our organizational values.” Packard’s Amanda Guslani, institutional communications director, told the Chronicle that the grant maker was concerned about the company’s “shifting trust and safety policies.”
Other groups say the reported rise in hate on the platform was the last straw in a fraught relationship. “If you go on Twitter now, all you see is a really, really hateful left side or a really, really hateful right side,” says Lonnie Valencia, communications director for El Pasoans Fighting Hunger, a Texas food bank. “We just want to feed people here in El Paso.”
The organization never viewed Twitter as a key communications channel for El Paso residents who rely on its services or support the group, Valencia added.
The Barr Foundation paused its account indefinitely in February. It had initially been attracted to Twitter as a “digital town square,” its communications team wrote in a blog post. But the grant maker paused the account indefinitely because it’s “not so safe, civil, or trustworthy anymore.”
“It’s not just the message or the messenger anymore: The method of communication matters,” says Mary Chalifour, Barr’s associate director of communications. Barr president Jim Canales also put his personal account on hold, tweeting, “This site has evolved in ways that no longer align with values that matter to me.”
In some instances, nonprofits and their affiliates have parted ways in their approach to Twitter. Local public-radio affiliates say they support NPR’s decision to pause its accounts but remain on Twitter to provide information to often news-starved local communities. “We believe we should continue using Twitter to provide fact-based, independent civic news that serves the public interest,” said Louisville Public Media president Stephen George in a statement to its members.
Nonprofit staff are also coming to different conclusions about Twitter than their bosses. Kathy Reich, director of the Build program at the Ford Foundation, has not tweeted since November, when she posted: “I am taking a break from Twitter, maybe for good. The anti-Semitism & other forms of hatred on this platform under its new owner are too much for me to take.” Ford, however, continues to tweet several times a day to its 210,000 followers, as does its president, Darren Walker, who has 65,000 followers.
At NPR, star hosts came down on opposite sides of the fence. “This Twitter water keeps heating up and I don’t love (being a) boiled frog, so I’m gonna hop away,” tweeted Ari Shapiro earlier this month. Mary Louise Kelly, meanwhile, posted, “For now, I’m here.” Both are promoting new books.
Twitter Buzz Fades
The decision to leave the 17-year-old Twitter is made easier by the fact that the platform’s value is diminishing. Paid content and advertising work well, experts say, but the organic reach of posts has dropped significantly. Fewer than 2 percent of Barr’s 10,500 followers saw posts on average last year, a consultant’s analysis found.
Twitter once generated so much excitement that conference participants live-tweeted panels and groups campaigned to make hashtags reach “trending” status on the platform, says Amy Sample Ward, CEO of NTEN, a collective of nonprofit technology professionals.
That buzz is gone, Sample Ward says. Some people have left Twitter because of Musk, but many have found that social networks like Instagram and LinkedIn suit their communications needs better. “What we’re looking for [in social media] may be changing,” the tech leader adds. “How long could any tool meet our needs, anyway?”
Many organizations have curtailed their use of Twitter, Sample Ward says. Shortly after Musk bought the company, NTEN stopped buying ads on the site and sharply reduced its content.
Sean Gibbons, head of the Communications Network, a social-sector membership organization, says Twitter is beginning to look like My Space, a once-hot, now-discarded platform. During the mid- to late-2010s, with Donald Trump regularly stirring the pot, Twitter was the place to go to see news break and listen in on interesting conversations, Gibbons says. “It just feels a lot less relevant now than it did even just six months ago. We haven’t realized it yet, but Twitter is kind of dead.”
Twitter’s Upside
At the moment, there’s no comparable mass-communications alternative to Twitter, according to digital experts and nonprofit leaders. In November and December, Watts of Moms Demand Action took Mastodon, a relatively new social-media platform that attracted some Musk haters, out for a spin. The experiment, however, appears to have failed. “Can things trend here?” she posted once. She last posted on Mastodon in early January, and her account has only 15,000 followers.
A spokesperson for the Anti-Defamation League, which in November called for a pause in the purchase of Twitter ads, said in an email that it recognizes “that some organizations — especially nonprofits and small businesses — may need to return to the platforms and find other ways to further express their concerns.” The ADL itself remains on the network because it “needs to be where the anti-Semites and extremists are, which clearly includes Twitter.”
For organizations with large Twitter followings, the platform still has upside as a megaphone. Among the 100 largest nonprofits, 13 have more than 1 million followers, including Unicef (9 million), the American Red Cross (5 million), Save the Children (2.7 million), the Smithsonian (2.5 million), and the Mayo Clinic (2 million).
Big groups also rely on Twitter advertising and paid content promotion to build their donor lists and target messages to audience segments they want to educate, solicit, and recruit for advocacy.
Thirteen of the top 100 nonprofits have 1 million or more Twitter followers. Of those groups, only PBS has suspended its activity on the platform.
The Chronicle asked the other 12 whether they intend to purchase a blue or gold checkmark. Four provided information — the American Cancer Society, the ACLU, CARE, and Save the Children. CARE said it will not buy the badge, while the others say they are still evaluating the system. (Some groups may still receive free badges; the ACLU says Twitter gave its account a free gold checkmark because its following was among the 10,000 largest.) Each of the four said it does not buy ads or promoted content.
Several organizations said they remain on Twitter because the information they provide is critical. The American Red Cross says itsTwitter presence is a crucial link to people who need help during an emergency. “We’re grateful to have been able to utilize ad credits donated by Twitter to funnel and deliver humanitarian aid when time is of the essence during emergencies,” the organization said in a statement to the Chronicle.
Emily Patterson, the ACLU’s social-media director, said it will continue on Twitter because the organization “is a trusted resource for breaking news on constitutional rights, legal rulings, legislative updates, and election information.”
Smaller groups see Twitter as key to reaching one or more segments of the platform’s core audiences, which includes academics, researchers, policymakers, and journalists, says Sherry, who’s a consultant for several nonprofit newsrooms and groups that aim to strengthen journalism and democracy. “I can’t advise them to quit Twitter, because a primary audience — journalists — are still on there, even if they are holding their noses and staying for news and information that helps them do their jobs.”
(The Chronicle, a nonprofit news outlet, paused all Twitter ad and promotion purchases in November 2022. It will not buy the checkmark verification service.)
Phil Buchanan and the Center for Effective Philanthropy returned to Twitter in January, although the group says it’s focusing more energy on other platforms. “Our primary consideration is to reach our audiences where they are, and while many have left Twitter, many remain,” it said in an email to the Chronicle. “We are continually monitoring the situation and may wind down our activity there as the site continues to decline in its utility and functionality.”
The Assistance Fund, which provides financial support to medical patients, puts most of its energy and resources into its Facebook account. Its Twitter account has only a few hundred followers, but it started a second last year focused on advocacy with a small but key audience in mind: federal policymakers. “We’re trying to advocate for patients in Washington, and policymakers are on Twitter,” says Margaret Figley, senior director of communications.
Figley, who says she finds the blue-check subscription troublesome, says she’ll continue to evaluate Twitter. But for now, the organization will remain on the platform. “At this point, I don’t see the reason to leave,” she says. “If I looked closely at any of the social-media platforms and who’s running them, I’m not sure I’d be a big fan of any of them.”
The Ford Foundation and Lilly Endowment are financial supporters of the Chronicle of Philanthropy.
Credit:Source link
