Non-profit organisations face increasing pressure to demonstrate accountability, impact, and alignment with funder priorities in today’s competitive funding climate. The days of good intentions are long past, and while non-profits have traditionally reported on outputs, government funders are increasingly requesting reporting against outcomes. Outputs are usually quantitative, for example, the number of clients assisted or the number of workshops held. Outcomes often include outputs, but the emphasis is on the long-term impact of a program. Outcomes focus on the overall impact on participants or the community and report changes in behaviour, knowledge, or actions.

The emphasis on outcomes requires a shift in thinking from simply counting services to considering the planning, structure, impact and evidence of a program or service. This is where program logic becomes essential, as it is the tool that connects all four aspects and enables a non-profit organisation to report on the effectiveness of its services.

Many non-profit organisations, even large non-profits, do not fully understand the power of social media to help them reach their goals. Nor do they understand the power of integrating social media metrics into their program logic. As a consequence, they are missing out on reporting on the full impact and power of their service delivery.

This article explains what program logic is, why it matters, how social media fits into it, and how to utilise social media metrics to enhance non-profit efforts.

What is Program Logic?

Program logic is a planning and evaluation framework that maps how a program’s activities are expected to lead to desired outcomes. It’s often presented in a diagram or table, showing the logical sequence from inputs (resources) to activities, outputs, outcomes, and ultimately, impact.

The basic structure of a program logic model includes:

● Inputs: Resources such as staff, funding, tools, or partnerships.
● Activities: What the program does — for example, workshops, outreach, training sessions.
● Outputs: Direct products of these activities, such as the number of events held or the number of people trained.
● Outcomes: Short- and medium-term changes or benefits, including increased knowledge, behavioural changes, or improved access to services.
● Impact: Long-term changes or societal improvements — for instance, reduced poverty, improved community health, or greater civic engagement.

A strong logic model not only helps design and manage a program, but it also clarifies how to measure success. It keeps everyone focused on what matters: change.

Why Has Program Logic Become So Important?

In today’s funding environment, nonprofits must not only demonstrate what they do but also show how it makes a difference. Donors, governments, and stakeholders are increasingly demanding accountability, transparency, and measurable results. Program logic provides the structure to demonstrate this.

Some of the reasons why program logic has become so important are:

1. Clarity and Focus: It forces organisations to think critically about how their work leads to change.

2. Evaluation: It sets the foundation for monitoring and assessing outcomes.

3. Strategic Planning: It helps teams prioritise activities aligned with goals.

4. Communication: It allows organisations to explain their value to funders, boards, and the public.

5. Adaptability: It provides a framework for adjusting strategies when outcomes aren’t being met.

In short, program logic connects mission to method, and method to measurement. As non-profits operate in increasingly complex environments, having that structure isn’t a luxury — it’s a necessity.

How Does Social Media Fit into a Program Logic Model?

Social media has become a vital component of how nonprofits communicate, engage, and deliver their services. However, it’s often treated as a separate add-on, rather than being fully integrated into the organisation’s theory of change.

In a modern program logic model, social media can play multiple roles:

● Inputs: Social media tools (e.g., platforms, content teams, social media managers) are resources.
● Activities: Campaigns, posts, live events, and engagement efforts are program activities.
● Outputs: These might include the number of posts, impressions, likes, shares, or videos produced.
● Outcomes: This may involve increased awareness, behavioural change, or greater participation in programs resulting from online exposure.
● Impact: Over time, the social media-driven activities can contribute to broader goals, such as improved community knowledge, mobilisation, or policy change.

Rather than treating social media as a promotional tool alone, program logic helps integrate it as a meaningful component of service delivery and impact generation.

What social media metrics should be collected in a program logic model?

Collecting data on Reach, Engagement, Conversion, and Sentiment is essential for building a strong program logic model, as these metrics provide concrete, measurable evidence that supports each stage of your program’s theory of change. Here’s how they align with and strengthen a logic model:

1. Reach

These metrics show how far your message is traveling:

● Followers/subscribers

● Impressions

● Unique reach

● Page visits

Why it matters: 

Reach metrics, such as followers and impressions, help demonstrate the scope and visibility of your efforts.

In the logic model: 

These data points demonstrate the effectiveness of your program in disseminating messages and content, key outputs that reflect the implementation of activities.

Example: If one of your strategies is awareness-raising, high reach indicates that your target audience is seeing your materials.

Program logic connects mission to method, and method to measurement. As non-profits operate in increasingly complex environments, having that structure isn’t a luxury — it’s a necessity.

2. Engagement – Outputs and short-term outcomes

These show how your audience interacts with content:

● Likes, reactions

● Shares/retweets

● Comments/replies

● Click-throughs

● Average watch time (for videos)

Why it matters: 

Engagement indicates that your audience isn’t just viewing your content—they’re actively interacting with it.

In the logic model: 

Engagement reflects short-term outcomes, such as increased interest, knowledge, or connection to your cause. It also shows whether your content is meaningful or relevant to your audience.

Example: If part of your program aims to change attitudes, growing engagement signals early success.

3. Conversion – Intermediate Outcomes

These track whether users take desired actions:

● Sign-ups

● Downloads

● Donations

● Event registrations

● Petition signatures

Why it matters: 

Conversion metrics track behaviour change, which is often a key outcome in logic models.

In the logic model: 

These are clear indicators of intermediate outcomes—actions people take as a result of exposure and engagement, such as signing up, donating, or joining a campaign.

Example: If your program seeks community mobilisation, event registrations or petition signatures are measurable signs of progress.

4. Sentiment – Quality of outcomes and feedback

These help measure how people feel about your brand or message:

● Positive vs. negative comments

● Brand mentions

● Tone analysis (through social listening tools)

Why it matters:

Sentiment data adds qualitative depth to quantitative metrics. It reveals how your message is being received emotionally and socially.

In the logic model:

Sentiment analysis can be used to refine your approach, identify unintended consequences, and monitor public perception, thereby informing both the quality of outcomes and ongoing improvements.

Example: Positive sentiment toward your campaign suggests alignment with community values; negative sentiment might reveal gaps or risks.

Together, these metrics:

● Ground your logic model in real-time, evidence-based feedback.

● Help assess whether your activities are leading to desired outcomes.

● Support adaptive learning—allowing you to adjust your strategies based on what

works or doesn’t.

● Enhance your ability to report the impact to stakeholders and funders effectively.

HOW CAN SOCIAL MEDIA METRICS SUPPORT AN ORGANISATION’S PROGRAM LOGIC

Social media metrics can do more than prove activity — they can help drive and improve your programs. Here’s how:

1. Measuring Awareness

If the organisation’s goal is to raise awareness about an issue, social media reach and engagement data help demonstrate whether that’s happening. For example, a campaign on mental health might track impressions and shares of an educational video as indicators of awareness raised.

2. Understanding Your Audience

Analytics reveal who is engaging — age, location, interests — which can guide program design. If your youth campaign is mostly reaching people over 40, you’ve got a targeting problem. Social data helps you fix it.

3. Improving Content and Messaging

By tracking what gets clicks or shares, you learn what resonates. This can inform future messaging across channels, not just online.

4. Driving Participation

Social media often serves as a funnel into other program activities, including events, volunteering, and donations. Metrics like click-throughs and sign-ups indicate how effectively you’re guiding people from awareness to action.

5. Informing Strategy

Over time, analysing trends across campaigns helps you refine your communication and outreach strategies. It helps move from “we think this works” to “we know this works.”

6. Real-Time Feedback

Unlike many evaluation tools that report after a program has ended, social media provides instant data. This can inform tweaks mid-campaign or help address problems quickly.

Program logic provides nonprofits with a roadmap from action to impact. Social media, when used intentionally and measured correctly, is more than just a nice ad — it’s part of that roadmap. By embedding social media metrics into logic models, nonprofits not only demonstrate that they’re keeping up with the times, but they also create more transparent, stronger, and more accountable pathways to achieving their mission.

In a world flooded with information, those who plan with logic and measure with purpose stand out. Social media isn’t separate from the work — it i s part of the work. And when organisations treat it that way in their program logic, they give their organisation a more innovative, sharper edge.

One thing brands and non-profit organisations have in common is dealing with the backlash of negative publicity when something goes wrong. In this era of social media, negative publicity spreads quickly and often gains traction. The consequences for both brands and non-profit organisations can be disastrous in terms of reputational damage, loss of revenue, and clients or customers.

Social silence refers to an organisation’s failure to communicate or engage on social media and other digital platforms. This failure includes activities such as:  

• Not posting or sharing content regularly.  

• Ignoring customer comments, questions, or feedback.  

• Failing to address industry trends, crises, or social issues.  

• Avoiding participation in relevant cultural or business discussions.  

Silence is often an organisation’s first response when things go awry. This reaction typically stems from internal crises, fear of backlash, lack of resources, or uncertainty about the appropriate messaging. However, it is crucial to understand that social silence is more than just the absence of communication – it conveys a message in itself, and consumers or clients pick up on this unspoken sentiment, which can lead to negative consequences for the brand.

This article explores social silence’s impact on a brand or non-profit organisation and other practical options they can consider. 

Social Silence is not a new phenomenon.

Social silence isn’t a new phenomenon; however, with the rise of social media, it has become a significant challenge for brands and non-profit organisations. Previously, brands and non-profits managed their messaging through traditional media like television, radio, and print. With these conventional forms of marketing, there was minimal direct interaction with customers or clients. The emergence of real-time digital communication has fundamentally transformed consumer engagement expectations and how businesses, in turn, must respond.

How consumer engagement expectations have changed.

Facebook launched in 2004, Twitter in 2005, and Instagram in 2010. These platforms provided consumers with direct access to brands, and as a result, they began to expect immediate responses to their inquiries, complaints, and trends. Brands that failed to respond swiftly were perceived as unresponsive and uncaring.

First major PR Crises

In the 2010s, the first major social media PR crises emerged, compelling brands to recognise the dangers of silence. For instance, in 2017, a video went viral showing a passenger being dragged off a United Airlines flight, and a delayed response from the airline resulted in a severe backlash that not only damaged their reputation but also led to a drop in their stock price of $1 billion. In 2018, Dolce and Gabbana faced severe criticism over an ad perceived as racist. D & G remained silent while the criticism escalated, resulting in a loss of credibility that took the brand years to recover.

Brand Activism

In 2017, the #MeToo movement emerged, and in 2020, Black Lives Matter gained prominence. These social movements and ongoing climate activism have heightened consumer expectations for brands to take a stand on social issues. A failure to do so is viewed as apathy or complicity. 

Pepsi and CrossFit faced backlash in 2020 due to their silence on social justice issues. Pepsi lost credibility for its lack of commentary on Black Lives Matter, while competitors like Coca-Cola took active stances on these issues. Similarly, CrossFit’s silence led to thousands of gyms severing their affiliations, damaging the brand’s long-term reputation.

The Pandemic and Digital Acceleration

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of clear and consistent brand communication. Customers expected brands to keep them informed regularly about closures, safety measures, and support initiatives, and the rise of cancel culture made it riskier for brands to remain silent. These expectations have persisted even after COVID.

Social silence became a strategic concern for brands in the 2010s. However, its significance has surged in recent years due to the emergence of digital activism, heightened crisis response expectations, and real-time social media interactions. Today, silence is seldom neutral—it can safeguard or harm a brand or non-profit, depending on its context and strategy.

Why is social silence still used when dealing with a crisis?

Given the damage social silence can do to a brand in terms of consumer backlash, reputational damage and financial losses, it is a strategy that needs careful consideration to be used effectively. In many situations, it is the default strategy. This can be for several reasons, such as:

1. Fear of making the situation worse.

Brands and non-profit organisations are fearful that any response could escalate a crisis rather than resolve it. This fear is understandable in hyper-connected work where missteps go viral. This fear often revolves around the tone of the message and how to express it, particularly when the issue is politically or socially divisive.

Organisations often delay any response because they fear that a poorly constructed apology or an apology perceived as an excuse will lead to further outrage, making silence the default position.

2. Lack of Crisis Management Preparedness

Some brands and many non-profit organisations have failed to develop risk management strategies, leading to a lack of policies, procedures, or plans for sensitively and effectively managing crisis communications. Without established PR strategies, brands and organisations scramble for a response, resulting in delayed or ineffectual communication or communication that is rushed, ineffective, or exacerbates the situation.

In 2020, Snapchat remained quiet for too long after facing backlash over a racist Juneteenth filter. This delayed response indicated a lack of internal awareness and management’s readiness to address cultural sensitivities.

The emergence of real-time digital communication has fundamentally transformed consumer engagement expectations and how businesses, in turn, must respond.

3. Belief the crisis will “blow over”

Organisations will often hunker down, banking on the consumer’s short-term memory and the likelihood that they will move and be distracted by other things. If this gamble doesn’t pay off, it can harm a brand or business in the long term.

Bunkering down and hoping things will blow over overlooks the consequences of cancel culture. Cancel culture is another factor that makes social silence incredibly risky. Social media platforms amplify the effects when something is being cancelled, making it all too easy for the situation to go viral. When a brand stays silent amid an unfolding controversy, it risks losing control of the narrative, allowing critics to shape public perception. 

Another aspect of cancel culture that organisations overlook is that it doesn’t just respond to current events; it also brings to light past mistakes the brand may have made. If a company has never addressed practices or issues from the past, the current silence makes those past controversies even more damaging in the present.

4. Legal and Compliance Concerns

Some crises carry legal risks, where saying the wrong thing could lead to lawsuits, regulatory issues, or breaches of contract. Lawyers may advise brands and companies to remain silent or issue vague statements until they can adequately assess the situation. Examples include product recalls or instances of employee misconduct. In these scenarios, the brand or company must follow the legal advice it receives.

Alternative strategies to social silence

Given that social silence is a risky strategy, there are alternative strategies that allow brands and organisations to maintain credibility and trust without taking a firm stance. Here are some of those strategies:

1. Acknowledge without Aligning

Instead of ignoring the situation, an organisation can acknowledge the issue without taking a strong position for or against it. This is about showing awareness without making a commitment that might not align with the brand or non-profit’s values or audience. Here’s an example of a statement that could be made:

“We recognise this is an important conversation for many. As a brand/non-profit, we focus on supporting our employees, customers, and communities in meaningful ways.”

2. Shift focus to core brand values

An organisation can avoid divisive conversations by upholding its long-standing mission or values. This keeps messaging consistent and prevents accusations of opportunism or performative activism. For example, the following statement could be made:

“At (brand or non-profit name), our mission has always been (insert core value). We stay committed to making a positive impact through our mission.”

3. Offer support without making a political statement

An organisation can act without making public declarations. For example, an organisation could:

• Make Donations to relevant charities without publicising them extensively.

• Set up employee well-being initiatives that create a positive internal impact.

• Promote mental health resources rather than engaging in direct activism.

Some organisations have provided employees with mental health days during intense political debates instead of taking a public stance.

Alternatively, organisations may positively contribute to initiatives that benefit local communities and foster long-term positive changes without making any public statements on divisive or politically charged issues.

4. Prioritize Customer and Employee Dialogue

When a brand or organisation needs to respond but is uncertain about what to say, it can listen to and engage with customers and employees. For example:

• Conducting internal discussions with staff before making public statements.

• Engaging with customers through direct messages rather than issuing a broad public announcement.

• Hosting roundtable discussions or surveys to understand different perspectives better.

These actions showcase a genuine willingness to listen and engage with customers and clients meaningfully.

Situations where it may be appropriate to maintain silence

While maintaining social silence is often a risky strategy, there are certain situations where it may be appropriate. For instance:

• During a rebranding or repositioning, it is essential to ensure the message aligns with the new brand or positioning before making a public statement.

• If responding could escalate a minor issue into a major PR crisis.

• To avoid performative activism, where a brand or organisation attempts to boost its social capital without being genuinely committed to taking real action or supporting the cause.

When a brand or organisation chooses to remain silent, it is crucial to be transparent and honest. For instance, the organisation could say, “We recognise this is an important conversation. While we don’t have all the answers, we are committed to learning and growing as an organisation.”

Being open and transparent avoids alienating customers and prevents forced or insincere messaging.

Social silence isn’t the only option for brands and non-profit organisations that want to avoid becoming caught in a controversy. By acknowledging, listening, supporting, and reinforcing core values, they can maintain trust and credibility without diving into controversy. The key is communicating strategically and authentically to avoid appearing indifferent or out of touch.