From Our Brains to Yours

June 15th, 2009

New Versus Old

We all know people who are either enamored with the new tool or enamored with the idea of doing something new and different.  They avoid doing the slower, older, more conventional approach that has demonstrated its success over time. They want to be seen as new and forward thinking, they want to make a splash.
But why do you have to choose one or the other?
Making a splash can be exactly what your organization needs for its latest campaign.  The flashy, new approach could build buzz, advance your goals quicker than normal and generate momentum that sustains the cause.  It could also fail miserably.
On the other side – the “conventional” way of doing things might always work, but just not fast enough or well enough for your latest campaign.
Resources are always limited, but isn’t there a way you get the advantages of both while limiting the downside?
I think there is if you know your goals, measure your progress against them relentlessly and if failing to achieve the goal for this campaign or project isn’t detrimental to your organization’s overall purpose.
First, know your goals.  What are you trying to accomplish?  Are you pushing legislation, raising funds, activating a volunteer base, trying to change public opinion, something else?
When you know your goals, you should know what achieving them looks like (votes for legislation, dollars raised, volunteer actions taken, etc.).  You’re tried and true “conventional” methods have demonstrated success year in and year out.  Take those metrics and ask yourself: how will the new strategy, tool, or technology improve on this?  What’s the worst case?  What’s the best case?
Finally: Is failing to achieve the goal for this campaign or project detrimental to the organization.  A couple of examples:
Fundraising: If you try something new and spend more money than you raise on the new tool, it’s probably not end of the world.  There is value in your lessons learned and maybe you can improve your executing the next time or know that the new tool isn’t a feasible option.
Elections: If you’re goal is votes on Election Day for your issue or candidate.  Implementing an untested new tool or strategy to win/turn out those votes may be too risky if losing the election would be detrimental to your long time mission.
Trying new things can bring new energy and excitement to your organization.  But that doesn’t mean they should replace the “old” tried and true methods that have proven effective over time.  If you can afford to fail while learning something new, I suggest always finding a way to try something new.  Many times, you’ll succeed.

We all know people who are either enamored with the new tool or enamored with the idea of doing something new and different.  They avoid doing the slower, older, more conventional approach that has demonstrated its success over time. They want to be seen as new and forward thinking, they want to make a splash.

But why do you have to choose one or the other?

Making a splash can be exactly what your organization needs for its latest campaign.  The flashy, new approach could build buzz, advance your goals quicker than normal and generate momentum that sustains the cause.  It could also fail.

Resources are always limited, but isn’t there a way you get the advantages of both while limiting the downside?

I think there is if you know your goals, measure your progress against them relentlessly and if failing to achieve the goal for this campaign or project isn’t detrimental to your organization’s overall purpose.

First, know your goals.  What are you trying to accomplish?  Are you pushing legislation, raising funds, activating a volunteer base, trying to change public opinion, something else?  Knowing your goals will keep you focused on building what you need to achieve them, not just what the latest and greatest new tool/approach/idea is now available.

When you know your goals, you should know what achieving them looks like (votes for legislation, dollars raised, volunteer actions taken, etc.).  You’re tried and true “conventional” methods have demonstrated success year in and year out.  Take those metrics and ask yourself: how will the new strategy, tool, or technology improve on this?  What’s the worst case?  What’s the best case?  As long as you keep an eye on the results, you can continue to test and build new programs on top of successful old standards.

Finally, is failing to achieve the goal for this campaign or project detrimental to the organization?  Two examples to demonstrate the difference:

  • Fundraising: If you try something new and spend more money than you raise on the new tool, it’s probably not end of the world.  There is value in your lessons learned and maybe you can improve your executing the next time or know that the new tool isn’t a feasible option.
  • Elections: If you’re goal is votes on Election Day for your issue or candidate.  Implementing an untested new tool or strategy to win/turn out those votes may be too risky if losing the election would be detrimental to your long time mission.

Trying new things can bring new energy and excitement to your organization.  But that doesn’t mean they should replace the “old” tried and true methods that have proven effective over time.  If you can afford to fail while learning something new, I suggest always finding a way to try something new. Many times, you’ll succeed.

Leave a Reply