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.

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 framing the NING change for various sized nonprofits.

John

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?