Beth is the person I most respect in the nonprofit social media space, but I often find myself disagreeing with how much emphasis she places on the weight social media should have in a non-profit’s overall resource-allocation.
I’ve had the opportunity to provide free consulting and advice to countless nonprofits over the years, ranging from the largest national and international organizations to smaller community-based outfits. What I consistently hear is that time is a nonprofit’s most scarce resource and that fundraising is the primary goal of public outreach campaigns (with driving awareness or education as a close second). The scarcity of time and attention is especially true for smaller organizations that often have dedicated skeleton crews working around the clock to pursue their goals. Beth focuses on these smaller nonprofits and so will I.
Given the scarcity of time, small nonprofits should primarily look at activities that provide them with the greatest leverage -- those where a small time investment can generate a disproportionate level of returns (either dollars raised or attention generated). Not only that, but I
would stress that this time commitment should be concentrated and infrequent rather than spread out over time. A new activity that needs to be done a little bit every day becomes a distraction, fragments your attention, and reduces focus on the things that matter most (actually achieving your organization’s goals and serving your constituents).When I look at how social media performs based on that “leverage” criteria, it does so very poorly. The expected return from social media is simply too small, and the on-going attention it requires to be done “right” is too fragmented over time.
Beth provides the example of a blog reader as a success story for the value nonprofits can derive from social media. Certainly there are many stories of successful use of social media by nonprofits, but those are exceptions rather than the rule. Making decisions based on evaluating only success cases is akin to playing the lottery because you saw last night’s winner on TV. Certainly Beth knows this and has on multiple occasions provided industry-wide data that is more representative. That said, I believe that most small nonprofits using social media see little to no return on their time invested (and I’m not even counting the steep learning curve that is involved).
On the Causes application on Facebook (arguably the largest-participation in causes on social media), we can calculate some summary statistics from back in July when they announced their $10MM raised milestone (there’s also some varying analyses on the right way to interpret the data):
- Less than 1% of users have made a donation (0.3% to be exact)
- Average dollars per user is 14 cents
- Only 10% of causes have received any money
- Average received per nonprofit is $189 (per cause it falls to $37 per cause)
Wefollow is the biggest categorized directory of Twitter users. Its “nonprofit” category has around 4,000 users in it. If we look at the median number of followers for the accounts there we see 250 followers. Taking into account that maybe only around 20-30% of Twitter accounts are active and half have never tweeted, we’re likely talking an expected audience on Twitter of around 60 people.
In the end I find social media a great way to build relationships and establish a presence for a non-profit (which in turn may lead to dollars raised), but not as a direct source for funds, especially for severely time-strapped small nonprofits. I’m sure many (most?) of you may not agree with my point of view and I’d love to be proven wrong, so please comment away. I’ll also write a couple of follow-on posts about how I think small nonprofits can use social media in a selective high-leverage fashion.
3 comments:
Thanks so much for your thoughtful disagreement!
If a nonprofit is facing major issues - like leadership quits, major deficits, or other problems that could prevent it being effective, than they should not be spending time on Facebook.
I see you coming down on the side of "don't even bother because it isn't even worth a small investment of time for a small nonprofit."
I think that's where we disagree. I think that provided there are not other major issues - getting start with low risk, time-boxed projects is a good thing.
I have to ask, what do you think the opportunity cost of not investing is at this time?
Also, considering the question of whether to engage or not - is also important. It is also an opportunity to look at all activities and determine what not to do and what might not be working (it isn't just social media ...)
Thanks again for your thoughtful post!
A great discussion, thank you both for sharing your views. As a management consultant working with nonprofit organizations in the Louisville Kentucky area I tell my clients that social media is an important stewardship opportunity. We get hung up on the money.
According to a study last year from the Center on Philanthropy the biggest reason a donor stops giving is because they no longer feel connected to or engaged with the nonprofit (http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/News/2008/pr-HNWPhilanthropy.aspx). How do you keep a donor engaged and informed? If a donor checks Facebook twice a week to see what their friends are up to, and also sees what the nonprofit he or she made a gift to is up to, it's a win. When a donor reads a Tweet from an organization to which he or she has made a gift, that's one way to keep them engaged, and increases the likelihood that they will make another gift.
Personally I don't like making contributions online (I know, blasphemy), it's a little too impersonal for me and I want the ask to be personal. So when I write that check, yes I still have a check book, it does not appear as a data point related to online giving, but online activity influenced the decision. I don't know how you begin to measure that, but there is rarely too much communicating with donors about how an organization is working to accomplish its mission.
Fund raisers focus on closing the gift, because that is how they are measured. Social media provides an inexpensive, opt-in, personal and intimate way to thank donors, to communicate with donors after the gift, helps ensure the gift returns the following year and that the donor feels appreciated. We get frustrated with donors who don’t read the newsletter, or didn’t open a letter because they thought it was a solicitation. You keep donors engaged by keeping them informed and we need to communicate with them in a format that works best for them.
What organization would not like to be able to share a different success story every week or every day with each of its donors? Delivered to their in-box or to their cell phone. No organization could afford that much direct mail, no one can make that many phone calls, and none of my clients have time to write full stories every week for even an e-newsletter, but short updates, 140 characters, they can figure that out. Social media also offers an opportunity for more staff members to be involved in communicating with donors and telling the organizations story. So it’s not always in the voice of the development director.
@jjguthrie
John thank you for that post. It just solidified how I've been thinking about one aspect of our social media strategy. I just send it to our CEO :).
Post a Comment