FLIP Video Contest Evaluation


Published on

2010 veranstaltete das betteplace lab einen FLIP Video Wettbewerb, in dem Organisationen des sozialen Sektors ihr Projekte vorstellen sollten. Doch führte das Video-Feedback und die vielen Klicks bei der Abstimmung auch zu mehr Spenden? Konnte zumindest die Aufmerksamkeit für die Projekte erhöht werden? Dies und mehr in dieser Evaluation.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

FLIP Video Contest Evaluation

  1. 1. The FLIP Video Competition"In 2010, the betterplace labinvited organizations onbetterplace.org to pitch theirideas for a video competitionthat would show theirprojectsʻ achievements,failures and learnings. Thetop 10 pitches each received2 FLIP cameras with whichto realize their film ideas. "
  2. 2. Our goals in holding the competition were:" 1.  To test whether film is a useful feedback and learning tool for NGOs" 2.  Whether the video competition would influence support and fundraising for participating organizations on betterplace.org" 3.  Whether the public would vote for the best quality film" 2
  3. 3. These inputs led to the following outputs"-  Staff time and expertise: idea -  Bid opens April 14, 2010: Send us your development, call for pitches, several film ideas in script format. Question to marketing campaigns, email be addressed: What have you management (a lot), evaluation of achieved and what can be improved?" pitches, research for technical -  By May 25, we received 240 inquiries, solutions, trouble shooting, process 68 pitches (48 eligible), shortlisted 20 monitoring, project management, blog through peer review and chose 11" entries http://www.betterplace-lab.org/de/blog " -  11 organizations received FLIP cameras, of whom 8 put their films on-  Cisco provided 20 FLIP cameras and YouTube by the deadline (3 failed to facilitated international delivery" submit anything)"-  Research and development of tools -  The competition was open for public for online video usage: voting" http://www.betterplace-lab.org/ forschung/stakeholder-feedback/de/flip -  By October 17, 2010, the winner had and for effective voting platforms and received 617 votes: software" http://www.betterplace-lab.org/de/blog/ der-flip-video-wettbewerb-hat-einen- 3 gewinner "
  4. 4. Finding: The FLIP competition had almost no 
effect on increased funding through betterplace.org" SAEP  Kinderhospiz  Regenbogenland   KIDS  Glasses  for  Everyone   HCFA  Provide  Hope  to  kids  in   Africa   APer:   18.Oct Kick  HIV!   Before:   29.Sep BeBook  the  mobile  library   Sol  y  Vida   Nursery  School  for  Togo   0%   20%   40%   60%   80%   100%   4
  5. 5. Finding: The „supporters“ on betterplace.org only 
 increased substantially for one organization" SAEP   KIDS  Glasses  for  Everyone  HCFA  Provide  Hope  to  kids  in  Africa   BeBook  the  mobile  library   APer:   Nursery  School  for  Togo   Before:   Kick  HIV!   Sol  y  Vida   Kinderhospiz  Regenbogenland   0   20   40   60   80   100   5
  6. 6. The videos on YouTube attracted the following 
 number of hits per film (total 6.807 views):" SAEP  South  Africa   539  David  im  Regenbogenland   728   HCFA  Ziegeprojekt   761   KIDS  –  Brillen  für  Alle   859   Togo  Nursery  School   874   Sol  y  Vida   876   BeBook  Mobile  Library   1029   Kick  HIV   1141   Total views: 6.807 0   200   400   600   800   1000  1200   6
  7. 7. The data shows that there is no correlation
 between the number of views and the ratings
 given"1200  1000   800   600   400   200   Views   0   Oct  17  ra^ngs   7
  8. 8. And it shows the time period over which
NGOs were able to attract votes" Kick HIV" HCFA Ziegenprojekt" SAEP South Africa" Togo Nursery School" BeBook Mobile Library" Sol y Vida" KIDS – Brillen für Alle" Oct-04" Oct-11" Oct-15" Oct-17" David im Regenbogenland" 0" 200" 400" 600" 800" 1000" 1200" 1400" 8
  9. 9. So what does this data tell us?"  Video feedback is a great tool for raising awareness for an organization among their own networks, mobilizing their own constituency and promoting what has been achieved (we know that from email feedback), however this campaign did not affect organizationsʼ funding on betterplace.org.!  Winning such a competition has not necessarily to do with the quality of oneʼs work but with his/her ability to mobilize social networks (we know that from the time period over which
 NGOs were able to attract votes). Hence an open video competition is not a valid evaluation, but rather a mobilization tool if well played with their own constituency." 9  
  10. 10. Compared to our original goals:"1.  We learned that a film is useful as a marketing tool and to show achievements, but not failures or feedback for NGOs. "2.  The video competition did not influence support and fundraising for organizations significantly on betterplace.org"3.  The public apparently did vote for the films of organizations that were well connected through social media campaigning. This leads to the assumption that it was not “the best quality” they voted for but they supported the cause of the NGO. " 10
  11. 11. Other lessons learned"   Transparency and communication are absolutely key: Never change deadlines or rules of the game without solid reasons and never do it without first explaining the change to participants (we made that mistake by changing the final voting deadline for purely internal reasons. This upset KickHIV, who had planned their big campaigning push for the last days of our original deadline. They claimed that this kept them from winning.)!   Precise marketing campaigns planning is vital at the beginning of your project (we did it rather spontaneously…). Keep in mind that your inbox will be flooded at times and it is important to respond to participants and answer their questions!"   Participants did not address failures and learnings in their films but rather used the medium as a marketing tool. This means that such a competition is not useful as a learning tool from failure. ! 11
  12. 12. Other lessons learned"   The organizations who participated had almost all great fun with the whole campaign and used it in their own contexts (not necessarily with the betterplace.org platform)"   The usefulness of the tools we provided (How to make a good video etc. ) cannot be properly assessed. One should plan a proper survey from the beginning when providing such tools." 12
  13. 13. We did not anticipate the following technical 
challenges for participants:"   how to upload to YouTube"   naming their YouTube videos (and renaming them when we asked them to give better, more accessible titles)"   attaching and syncing sound to their videos"   creating hi-resolution videos"   loading the large files online with very slow internet connection"   creating captions (for translations)"   finding editing software that worked on their computers" 13  
  14. 14. And these technical challenges remain when it
comes to public voting using open Internet 
platforms"   What information should be required (besides an email address) from voters which discourages duplicate voting of single individuals? Their names? How can we keep them accountable?"   What if one village or a school, for example, has very few computers? Should it matter if multiple votes come from a single IP address?"   How to deal with the fact that some of these places (like Nicaragua or Africa) have a much lower instance of computer/ Internet users than in Germany for instance? Should we consider this discrepancy?"   How do we evaluate the validity of votes?" 14  
  15. 15. And last but not least..." The winner was offered a free consulting session with an NGO expert, but they never asked for it." What is the lesson to be learned from that???" "
  16. 16. Appendix" Extra charts showing before and after numbers during the competition."
  17. 17. During the voting phase, the organizations were 
barely active through blogposts on betterplace.org" Kinderhospiz  Regenbogenland   KIDS  Glasses  for  Everyone   SAEP  HCFA  Provide  Hope  to  kids  in  Africa   APer:   Nursery  School  for  Togo   Before:   Kick  HIV!   BeBook  the  mobile  library   Sol  y  Vida   0   5   10   15   20   25   30   35   40   17
  18. 18. The number of „advocates“ on their betterplace
 profiles was only marginally increased " SAEP   KIDS  Glasses  for  Everyone   Nursery  School  for  Togo   Sol  y  Vida   APer:   BeBook  the  mobile  library   Before:  HCFA  Provide  Hope  to  kids  in  Africa   Kick  HIV!   Kinderhospiz  Regenbogenland   0   10   20   30   40   50   18
  19. 19. And the „visitors“ to their betterplace profiles
 did not increase at all" KIDS  Glasses  for  Everyone   Kick  HIV!   BeBook  the  mobile  library   Nursery  School  for  Togo   APer:  HCFA  Provide  Hope  to  kids  in  Africa   Before:   Sol  y  Vida   SAEP   Kinderhospiz  Regenbogenland   0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   19
  20. 20. Vielen Dank." Thank you." Susanna Krueger and the betterplace lab team (especially Becky Crook)betterplace lab" and also thanks to Martin Sprott for excellent advise."Schlesische Strasse 26"10997 Berlin"Tel +49 30 76 76 44 88-0"Fax +49 30 76 76 44 88-40"lab@betterplace.org"