Facebook is the future. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't!

On Monday, I shared some thoughts on social media, with a particular focus on Facebook and Twitter.

My central point was that there are better routes to leverage the power of our social instinct than these two behemoths of the internet.



Beate Sorum, of the digital fundraising consultancy - b.bold - disagreed with me. As you'll see from her blog post, she thinks Facebook can be a great fundraising medium. And just because most charities don't have a Facebook plan, show very little care about what they post, fail to engage with followers and have no recognisable personality, it doesn't mean the channel itself is flawed.

Now, I think Beate is fantastic. If there’s one person you should listen to about digital fundraising it’s Beate. If I know she’s going to speak at a conference, I’ll be in the room, frantically tweeting ever drop of wisdom she shares.

And I think Beate is right on many points in her post. Facebook can be improved if fundraisers use it more effectively.


But that doesn't mean I've changed my mind.

We can do better than Facebook.

I'm not saying we turn our backs on it, but our ambitions shouldn't be restricted by what Facebook (or Twitter) can offer us.

As I say in my original post, I don't have an argument with recruiting donors and volunteers through Facebook advertising. We do both at Bluefrog for different clients. It can also be great for campaigns (as I also said). So no problem there either.

But the fact is, Facebook isn't designed to build engaging relationships with donors. And as such, we are working within an environment that restricts us – no matter how hard we try.

Wouldn't it be great if we could give our donors a place where they felt special?

Where they could be part of stories that unfold over time that show them what they have helped achieve?

Where they could be effectively recognised and rewarded?

Where we could manage cancellations?

Where we could give them a chance to upgrade their regular gifts or give additional donations with a few clicks?

Where we could look at their on site behaviour and construct communication materials that take those actions into account?

Just because we have Facebook, it doesn't mean that we should stop striving for better.

The Forrester report that sparked my original post showed that much of the money and resources expended on Facebook was wasted. It also showed that branded social hubs were better at engaging people. And that has been my experience with social sites created for charities – with one caveat.

And this is where I firmly agree with Beate. Any medium will fail unless we deliver content that is valued and relevant. If we don't provide that, it doesn't matter how great our channel is, it will sink without trace.

Comments

[Johnlepp]

Yes... BUT...

I would at least insert one more thing. As humans, don't some of us use these channels very WELL to build an engaging relationships? I would say, in some ways, FACEBOOK or Twitter or Instagram are AMAZING tools for building on a newly forming relationship. Look at you and I Mark - How much do we know about and respect each other in our personal and professional lives because of these tools! I would say we are using them very well!

Where most charities fall short is they stop THINKING like humans and start ACTING like "brands" where they are told to be PROFESSIONAL and maintain certain lines of messaging... Like B says - Shit in, shit out.

You don't blame a hammer for bending nails, you blame the holder of the hammer.

[Beate Sørum]

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts on this, and I don't think we disagree too much here. For my part though, I see more of a role for social media in the things you mention above. For instance, in two weeks in March of this year, the Norwegian Cancer Society could personally thank about 20.000 door knockers for their efforts, within the hour of their service. We replied on their instagram photos and on their tweets, thanking them for saving lives, commenting on something spesific in their photo/tweet, so that it is clear to them that the comment is personal and not mass produced. We got so many comments back from people who were surprised and very pleased by the level of recognition. There is no way we would have done that without social media.

Being able to SEE someone in that way, creates another level of loyalty and brand love I believe.

While I agree that a branded community would probably be a better place for donors to see the progress, follow up and manage their relationship to the charity, I believe you have to be an already quite engaged donor to enter such a community.

The advantage of facebook is that people are already there. They don't have to go out of their way to seek out the charity. You get to tell those who are a little, and those who are a lot, engaged what their money does. And this, when done right, creates a strong relationship over time. Facebook IS designed to create strong relationships - that's exactly what the platform does. But you have to treat it as a relationship platform, and not an advertising platform for that to work. (And then your advertising on the platform will be enourmously effective as well).

However, I 100% agree that we should not stop at facebook. I think the most effective second commmunication piece for an online donor, is probably a well crafted mail pack. We have to do both (all).

[James Ashby]

Firstly great blog site with lots of interesting articles.

I think Facebook has turned from a social people to people website to a now social business to people website.

Frankly I think crowdfundraising is an interesting way forward but has yet to take off.