Today, the world of Ning Network Creators woke up with expectation to learn about the details of the new direction that Ning will be taking. A lot of reactions resulted from the announcement to cut free social networks and let go 40% of the staff, no more than 3 weeks ago.
The day following the announcement, after a night of little sleep, I wrote an Open Letter to Jason Rosenthal and Marc Andreesen, the CEO and the Chairman/Co-Founder of Ning. In the post I appealed to them, asking them to consider the impact the decision would have on small nonprofits and education networks.
Accompanying the post was a petition started by Jason Chmura, from the Society for Nonprofit Organizations, rallying to keep EDU and NPO Ning networks free. In no time, the petition gathered nearly 1,200 signatures.
Early this morning, the news broke on the Ning blog and the New York Times:
- Ning will be offering three pricing/feature plans, priced at nearly $50, nearly $20 and nearly $3 per month, respectively.
- The New York Times announced the pending agreement through which an unannounced sponsor will underwrite K-12 networks on Ning to keep them free.
What does this mean for Network Creators? (completed details here)
- Large networks (with thousands of members) were likely paying for some kind of premium service. In general, in these cases, the Ning Pro package is likely to be a great deal. As an example, in TuDiabetes and EsTuDiabetes we are currently using most of the premium services, which add up to around $80 per month per network. The Ning Pro option will bring that cost down to $49.95 per month per network.
- Mid-size networks (under a thousand members but more than 150 members) that may have been paying for some premium services may find themselves saving some money too. Even if they were not paying $19.95, except for the inability to upload videos and music to the network (you can still embed players from other sites), the value you can get from this package (including the ability to run your own ads) seems like a great value to me too.
- Small networks (under 150 members), unless they are a K-12 network, are faced with the Ning Mini option, which leaves out a few features (Groups, Events) and limits membership at 150 members and limits support access. Yet this option opens up the ability to run your own ads, which (even running Google Ads, believe me!) can easily cover the $2.95 that the package runs for.
- Last, some networks will choose to migrate away from Ning and pursue some of the Ning alternatives that have been discussed in detail in recent weeks. Ning has stated:
We will be adding an automated export option to the manage page of each Ning Network by the July launch. You will have 30 days after the launch to select the migration option and export your Ning Networks content in an Atom syndicated format.
What does this mean for nonprofit networks?
The nonprofit technology sector has learned a few lessons. One of the important lessons goes in line with what I told to the writer of the New York Times (quoting from the article -I don’t get to quote myself from the Times too often!):
“The big lesson for nonprofits and education technologists alike would be to keep in mind that if you want absolute control over the way a certain platform or solution works, the only way that can be accomplished is by housing it yourself,” he said. “Unfortunately that comes at an additional cost, and that cost has to be taken by someone.”
Nonprofits outside of the US may face a mixed future, depending on their ability to afford the fees to be charged when the new pricing packages kick in.
What does this mean for Ning?
I think Ning has also learned a big lesson, as it shows in the way they managed the announcement today, compared to the way the first announcement was made.
Today’s announcement used every possible channel (email, the Creators network, their Twitter account, the NYTimes piece and even a press release that made it on a few other sites). They even scheduled 4 conference calls to answer questions about the changes in the coming few days.
They will still be charging for all networks (K-12 networks, they will just be charging someone other than the network creator): the essence of the information to be shared hasn’t changed. But the way in which is has been shared is much more appreciated by everyone.
What do YOU think about the announcement Ning made today? How will it affect your plans in connection with the Ning platform?
Firstly, thanks for getting the word out about the Ning network structure. I think most of us were wondering what it would look like and worried about impact. My first big thought about the pay structure is “whew, it’s not as bad as I thought it would be.” I suppose that says it all, doesn’t it?
The heart of the issue is what you highlight in this article: if you really want control over content, message delivery, and network structure, you have to build and house the social network yourself. I think all of us thought that Ning was too good to be true, and it was. However, it begs the circular question: what about the small nonprofit organization that doesn’t have the capacity to build a social network or the funds to pay someone else to do it? This is the dilemma most nonprofit organizations face.
I suspect most Ning network creators will continue to use Ning, however, as it is cheaper in the short-run than a custom solution.
Usually social media is too good to be true if it is free. We all acknowledge with a wink and a nod that the free lunch won’t be free forever. However, I think we should consider the next “too good to be true” offer thoughtfully, and from a place of knowledge: How will the company or the social media platform monetize? How will that affect our creative content and messaging? How can we participate in the conversation so that nonprofit organizations are real players and not second-hand thoughts?
Manny,
Thanks for framing the NING change for various sized nonprofits.
John
I agree. I was bracing for a need to replatform. This is not as bad as expected. Like you,, Manny, we were already using premium services so this might represent a savings.
Manny thanks for your insightful post and for being so transparent.
I think this has huge implications for nonprofits and small groups. The network that I had founded, and have since handed over the reigns, is going to be deleted because they don’t want to pay for the service. The group is being funneled to their Facebook page instead of having a niche social network.
This is a interesting step to monitization of social networks. I know that many other networks like Sugar, and I’m sure even Facebook, is watching how this all pans out. Maybe Ning figured it out, maybe they will make a ton of money. Probably not.
I’m most concerned about the nonprofit bracket of membership. 150 members seems like a sad patch for nonprofits. The price jump past that makes it’s a financial decision for organizations that want to continue to use Ning for their community. The lack of nonprofit pricing past Ning-Mini is concerning. Nonprofits cannot compete with big brands, they are not in the same game. I’m holding out hope that Ning sees this difference and makes some breaks for organizations going the world’s good.
Thanks for giving your thoughts on these changes. I really liked your “what does this mean” by network size, and found it to be a great way to digest these changes.
I must admit that I have some mixed feelings myself. Although I was a bit skeptical that they would keep any free options for npo/edu use (despite the petition), I was really glad to see that they were able to find a sponsor for K-12 educational use. However, I’m equally disappointed with the restrictions that have been placed on the “Mini” package intended for small nonprofits.
I understand that they’re ultimately interested in the bottom line, but I agree with Dawn that the 150 member max is extremely limiting. I also feel that the feature set is mediocre at best. If they must abandon the ‘freemium’ model, I really would have liked to see an enhanced feature set (e.g., features that aren’t bandwidth intensive – pages, events, groups, etc.) and a higher member max (e.g., 1-2,000?) for nonprofit organizations. I may be naive, but I really believe that the goodwill generated by creating an option for nonprofits with Mini pricing and more (not all!) of the Plus features would have gone a long way towards offsetting some of the damage they’ve brought to their brand.
Either way, I hope that nonprofits will do what they can to heed your advice (in the New York Times!) and consider self-housed and open source solutions whenever it’s feasible.