Interview with Holly Ross, NTEN

As the Director of Programs at NTEN, Holly spends her time combing through all the technology fads and listening to the NTEN community to create and run the webinars, conferences. and research that will help members use technology to make the world a better place.

Prior to coming to NTEN, Holly worked with TechRocks, home of ebase and an innovator in the nonprofit technology assistance field. As a consultant with TechRocks, Holly's expertise was utilizing technology tools to facilitate and amplify traditional organizing--from using databases to better manage members and activists to creating opportunities to engage constituents on the Internet.

Holly also worked as an organizer with the California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG), where she received a good grounding in organizing principles while working on campaigns to protect the Headwaters Forest, protect clean water in California, end Hunger and Homelessness and strengthen the Endangered Species Act.

In 1997, Holly received her BA from the University of California at Berkeley in English, where she minored in agitating to democratize the Regents, the state-appointed governing board for the University of California system.

 

How can advocates best serve the ‘public interest’ in the new media environment?

By allowing citizens to create and spread their own messages for change. We are a society that is incredibly weary of over-produced images and stories. We crave something real and authentic. And that’s what’s so great about new media – it allows individuals to tell their own authentic stories and share them. Any nonprofit can tell me that we should protect open space in our neighborhoods. But the story from my friend about what that open space means to her – that’s what’s going to inspire me to act. The best thing we can do as a sector is give our advocates the information and tools they need to make our causes their own.

What role will localism play in the Web 2.0 world now that ‘community’ has such a larger meaning?

Localism will never cease to matter. No matter how much time you spend online interacting with a global community, you will still need to go outside and interact with your community when you want a soy a latte. It just means that you might have a new understanding about where that coffee comes from, how it’s produced, and what the alternatives are – because now you can have a broader perspective.

Does the increased use of the Internet for political outreach ultimately mean that the high cost and barriers of running for public offices will be lowered for all candidates?

No. Traditional media is not going anywhere and still plays and important role in shaping the debate. Most people of voting age are still Digital Immigrants (see the Berkam Center’s Digital Native project). They remember a world without the Internet. We’re just entering the phase where Digital Natives are becoming politically active. When they are the majority of the voting population, maybe we’ll see more of a shift. But by then, I’d bet that new media has figured out how to monetize like old media.

In other countries, mobile devices are commonly used for political and informational campaigns, so why aren’t Americans using mobile technology for much beyond entertainment? What needs to change?

Infrastructure and cost. The US has one of the most robust telecommunications infrastructures in the world. Most of our population is hard wired to use things with, well, hard wires to communicate. It’s an ingrained part of our culture. Where you see the highest rate of adoption of mobile use is in places where a) the culture is highly adoptive of new technologies anyway (i.e. Japan) and/or b) there was no reliable infrastructure before (i.e. India). Clearly though, those digital natives are texting like crazy – so I think we’ll see this all change with time. The other big factor is that generally speaking, we get charged per text in the US, which is not the case in lots of places overseas.

As more nonprofits transition to their .org identity, must the overall roles of nonprofits evolve as well? How?

Absolutely. Nonprofits have to stop thinking of themselves as a destination, and start thinking of themselves as conduits. Don’t worry so much about bringing people to YOUR site to get YOUR information. Go to where the people are and, bring good information, whatever its source, to them. People will respect you for being a good filter, and they will continue to engage with you. I could talk about this for hours!

How could philanthropic models (i.e. grant-making) evolve to serve more web initiatives? Will traditional foundations begin to look more like Venture Capitalists?

I think grant makers need to stay focused on making sure that eye glasses keep getting out to those kids who can’t see without them. But I think that grant makers have to change the way they think about accomplishing that goal. It’s one thing to give a group a bunch of money to buy eyeglasses for a couple of years. It’s a much better thing to give a group a money to build a platform and campaign that will engage thousands of supporters who will donate time and money to buy eyeglasses for years to come.

Name a favorite campaign/organization that used Web 2.0 tools to successfully accomplish a goal. Explain why you found it effective.

I’m not, unfortunately, involved enough to tell you why or if any of these are effective, but things I like and our community recommended include:

http://www.netsquared.org/kahlon
http://secondlife.iste.wikispaces.net/
http://defectivebydesign.org had their members tag all items on Amazon that have DRM restrictions. It worked well because it got their name out while warning consumers