From an aspiring community builder and joiner's perspective, my favorite parts that stuck out to me: not losing the "mystery" or the "good friction" as one builds or joins, but rather ensuring these remain part of the community even with a robust online presence, and mitigating the risk of pay-to-play (e.g., offering sliding scale or free memberships based on income/wealth, or separate standalone programs that require fees while the core is open to anyone). The article also prompted me to think how to build communities outside and across lines of industry-based groupings for true bridging capital vs specialization by interest/belief system. Thanks for writing and sharing this.
Yes! And the "frictionlessness" doesn't have to be an all/nothing mechanic, but a very specific brush to paint with at very specific moments in an experience. Like, I mostly feel any exchange of $$ (paying dues, donating, checking out, etc) should be fairly easy since that's a moment of deep trust and high stakes...but that can take shape in many different ways!
I appreciate this piece so much. As someone who recently stepped into overseeing communications for a hyper-local, grassrootsy nonprofit with "building community" in its mission, this productively challenged some of my assumptions or mental shortcuts about what "good" or "professional" communications should look like. ("Look like" being the operative word there.) Effective and inclusive communication, yes, but glossing everything into optimized homogeneity, not so much.
Oooof yes I feel you. It is especially subtle how those dominant aesthetics raise the bar for everyone, even smaller (and probably much cooler) orgs to look and feel like them too. It becomes a "best in class" thing even though it's really worth picking apart why that's considered best in class, and if we even like it! I'm with you though, it's really a constant unlearning!
I have also just become the Comms person for a small community org, and immediately was torn between the desire to professionalise our communications Vs the sense that that may not be what our community wants or need- looking as if we come from online is not especially relevant to al of our residents. There is also the disjunct between what might be best for the community, and what would be best for potential funders to see. All good thoughts!
Toootally; also such a good point that there is a tension between different audiences, and different aesthetics that signal different things to everyone.
great read btw, thanks for the reflection. as someone who's actively inviting people to gather and spend good time together, this definitly makes me think 🫶
Elise!!!!!! You always manage to see inside my brain and make a beautiful essay out of it. I have been thinking so much about this topic which in my brain I've basically boiled down to the meme of instagram versus reality. I've signed up for so many things based on instagram hype and then I show up and the vibes are not good and I'm like "THIS IS THE EVENT EVERYONE SAID CHANGED THEIR LIFE on instagram?????".
The branding and the selling is so real. This essay is a really good push to try things out with less info.
Also though I really appreciated your caveat about certain info being actually crucial to have up front like accessibility.
I've also been thinking about this a lot. Local community orgs are increasingly feeding the social media beast instead of helping us step away from it back into real life. My spouse has pointed out that when a group has sleek branding, it gives the impression that the group has its sh*t together, even if it doesn't. So people might make false assumptions about how much substance and planning exists behind the branding. For example, he thought a local org was national because their comms look so good.
Loved this. So thought-provoking. Thanks for sharing.
From an aspiring community builder and joiner's perspective, my favorite parts that stuck out to me: not losing the "mystery" or the "good friction" as one builds or joins, but rather ensuring these remain part of the community even with a robust online presence, and mitigating the risk of pay-to-play (e.g., offering sliding scale or free memberships based on income/wealth, or separate standalone programs that require fees while the core is open to anyone). The article also prompted me to think how to build communities outside and across lines of industry-based groupings for true bridging capital vs specialization by interest/belief system. Thanks for writing and sharing this.
Yes! And the "frictionlessness" doesn't have to be an all/nothing mechanic, but a very specific brush to paint with at very specific moments in an experience. Like, I mostly feel any exchange of $$ (paying dues, donating, checking out, etc) should be fairly easy since that's a moment of deep trust and high stakes...but that can take shape in many different ways!
I appreciate this piece so much. As someone who recently stepped into overseeing communications for a hyper-local, grassrootsy nonprofit with "building community" in its mission, this productively challenged some of my assumptions or mental shortcuts about what "good" or "professional" communications should look like. ("Look like" being the operative word there.) Effective and inclusive communication, yes, but glossing everything into optimized homogeneity, not so much.
Oooof yes I feel you. It is especially subtle how those dominant aesthetics raise the bar for everyone, even smaller (and probably much cooler) orgs to look and feel like them too. It becomes a "best in class" thing even though it's really worth picking apart why that's considered best in class, and if we even like it! I'm with you though, it's really a constant unlearning!
I have also just become the Comms person for a small community org, and immediately was torn between the desire to professionalise our communications Vs the sense that that may not be what our community wants or need- looking as if we come from online is not especially relevant to al of our residents. There is also the disjunct between what might be best for the community, and what would be best for potential funders to see. All good thoughts!
Toootally; also such a good point that there is a tension between different audiences, and different aesthetics that signal different things to everyone.
check the work of Build IRL, i thought about them -and the clubs and communities they're supporting- many times while reading you: https://open.substack.com/pub/buildirl?r=2cys&utm_medium=ios
great read btw, thanks for the reflection. as someone who's actively inviting people to gather and spend good time together, this definitly makes me think 🫶
Yessss I've been following them for a few months now! Really interesting to watch 'em 💜 so grateful that you're here and dug this!
This is so smart and thoughtful about the “selling” of community. Excited to have found your work!
Yay! So glad that it’s resonating with you, Katherine!!
This nailed something I hadn’t realized I was feeling/doing, thank you!
Also did you ever read the piece on Blackbird Spyplane about the “un-grammable hang zone”? A lot of connections there I think
https://www.blackbirdspyplane.com/p/un-grammable-hang-zone-manifesto
YES i've also wanted to write a UGHZ/community space connective piece for a while, deeeefinitely same idea and was really inspired by that piece!
Elise!!!!!! You always manage to see inside my brain and make a beautiful essay out of it. I have been thinking so much about this topic which in my brain I've basically boiled down to the meme of instagram versus reality. I've signed up for so many things based on instagram hype and then I show up and the vibes are not good and I'm like "THIS IS THE EVENT EVERYONE SAID CHANGED THEIR LIFE on instagram?????".
The branding and the selling is so real. This essay is a really good push to try things out with less info.
Also though I really appreciated your caveat about certain info being actually crucial to have up front like accessibility.
Haaahahaha "THIS is the event everyone said changed their life??" is tooo good. So glad this resonated and our brains are on the same plane!!
I've also been thinking about this a lot. Local community orgs are increasingly feeding the social media beast instead of helping us step away from it back into real life. My spouse has pointed out that when a group has sleek branding, it gives the impression that the group has its sh*t together, even if it doesn't. So people might make false assumptions about how much substance and planning exists behind the branding. For example, he thought a local org was national because their comms look so good.