queer ideas

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.

What would happen if you lived your real life like your virtual one?

A rather entertaining viral video from the English National Opera, that demonstrates what might happen if you used Facebook and Twitter rules for your real life.

Nothing really to add apart from the obvious - not all friends are friends.

A great example of how to use Twitter as a campaign tool

I'm rather impressed by the Follow the Money Twitter app created in response to the allegation that The News of the World was involved in hacking Milly Dowler's voice mail account.

You can read more about it in Melissa Harrison's article in The Guardian, Why I set about hitting the News of the World where it hurts – its advertising.

Like most good ideas, it's very simple and could be inexpensively copied by campaigning organisations.

It's a web page with tweet me buttons that allows any twitterer to pose a suggested question to the Twitter accounts of the brands who are advertising in (and selling) The News of The World.

Take the country's largest newsagents for example. With a click of a button you can add your voice to the growing number of people who are deeply unimpressed with the paper's actions by asking @WHSmithcouk if they "consider it ethical to stock a newspaper prepared to hack a murdered girl's phone?"

I've just done it and am waiting for an answer. But looking at the number of people who've asked the question before me, I may be waiting some time. Click here to join the list.

Here's a screen grab of the site in case it gets taken down.

Putting the power of mums to work

Nick Clegg is off to the UN Summit in New York at the end of September and Save The Children want to put some pressure on him to encourage world leaders to refocus their efforts to ensure we achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

Getting help from 100,000 people to nudge him in the right direction through signing a petition is part of their plan and they have decided that some influential UK parenting blogs could be a good recruiting round.

So they have invited three prominent bloggers: Josie from Sleep Is For The Weak, Sian from Mummy Tips and Eva from Nixd Minx to fly out and see what the charity is doing in Bangladesh. All three will obviously be speaking to mothers and children about their lives, hopes and fears and sharing their experiences on their blogs.

And through their blogs, they'll encourage their readers to get involved by signing the petition, donating money and giving unwanted clothes and household goods to their local Save the Children shop.

Some tweeters with huge followings like Neil Gaiman and Stephen Fry have already starting promoting the campaign (known as #blogadesh) and are generating some significant traffic.

But it will really kick off when the bloggers start writing about what they see. When someone you know and trust as a source of advice and inspiration starts talking about poverty, it's going to be more relevant, more motivating and more engaging that just seeing an advertising banner asking for help.

There's been some interesting research in the last few years in neuro-cognitive science that helps explain why this is the case. In short, if we see someone experience an emotion - anger, joy or sadness – the same neurons spark in our brain as if we were experiencing it ourselves.

It's one of the fundamental donor needs. We are driven to be sociable. We need to belong. And it's empathy which is the primary driver behind that need.

Rather than make you trawl through 1,500 words on the latest scientific research that backs up this claim, I've found this great animated video from the RSA where Jeremy Rifkin explains it far more effectively (and entertainingly) than I ever could.

As you'll see, new technology is changing the way we think about our fellow human beings. We are now extending our identities far beyond national and religious boundaries.

As a result, we are able to directly relate to people's suffering on a far more personal level - as mothers for instance – and do something that is becoming increasing clear that we psychologically need to do - offer help.

That's why I think Save The Children's approach is so exciting – it directly taps deep into our psyche and, as a result, I expect the outcome should be very rewarding for everyone who's involved - not just the people being helped in Bangladesh.

For more more details on donor needs take a look at this previous post.

Thanks to @charityclare for the heads up.

How to make Twitter more effective for your charity

At the end of last month I posted a piece on how charities seemed stuck on broadcast mode when it came to Twitter.

Click through and you'll see I tweeted that I was thinking of giving to a few charities but didn't get much response from those I mentioned.

But I did receive this example of how Wheat Thins (an American cereal product) is responding to the people that tweet about them.

They are probably doing 'slightly' more than needed, but It's not a bad approach to making people feel special (OK, I know it's fake, but you can see what they are up to).

It's not necessarily something that I'd recommend for charities, but keeping an eye on what people are saying about your charity on social media (perhaps using samepoint.com) and responding when they raise questions or voice complaints might be a relatively good starting point to making Twitter a more effective medium.

Thanks to Felix for the heads up on the video and @RobmDyson for the samepoint.com recommendation.

What's different about See The Difference?

I gave my first gift via See The Difference on Monday.

If you haven't heard of them, let me explain who they are.

The people who run the organisation see themselves as being at the forefront of a revolution in charity giving.  Dominic Vallely, one of the founders, was reported in Third Sector as saying it was like being at the beginning of Google.

The basic idea behind the concept is video sharing. Working to guidelines laid down by See The Difference, charities produce short films that tell stories about specific projects. Each charity guarantees that they will provide feedback on how a gift has made a difference, which might be via another video or a letter and photographs. By searching on the site you can identify which projects you want to support and through Twitter, Facebook and email you can tell all your friends about what you are doing.

There are some big names behind See The Difference. Their list of corporate partners includes McCann Erickson, Microsoft, Virgin Money Giving and Accenture along with organisations at the heart of the charity sector such as the IOF, NCVO and the Directory of Social Change.

But even bigger are the financial targets. Vallely projects that the website will raise £500 million in the first five years.

I'd be surprised if they get anywhere near that figure unless there are some radical changes to the whole concept.

I've had a good look around the site and watched a fair number of videos. It looks like most have been created by people who don't know much about fundraising. I'm not sure if it's because the guidelines laid down by See The Difference are very strict, but something seems to be going wrong.

The supporting copy to the videos is all very 'we' focused. It talks about what the charity will do and completely misses the point that good fundraising is about showing the donor what he or she can do. At its simplest, it's about saying 'you' much more often than you say 'we'. See The Difference is far too 'we'.

The videos I have watched take the same approach. The donor is reduced to a bit part where they simply hand over cash.

There is the very welcome promise of feedback, but without ensuring the donor is engaged enough to give, feedback won't count for much.

To be fair, some of the videos demonstrate the power of the medium very well. Take a look at this short film of a girl reading after an eye operation. Her mum's reaction is fantastic to see. And here's the project that I chose. When I shared it on Facebook, it only generated a single comment and that was Urrrgh!

But the navigation system doesn't help you identify the videos that you'd like to watch in the first place.

It's relatively easy to search by category, location and gift value, but when you get down to the results pages you find yourself confronted with a number of rather obscure puns to help make the final selection. Titles like Branching out, Poverty can buzz off and Treasy Peasy don't really help you identify what the problem is or, more importantly, what you can do about it.

There are so many charities and projects on the site that a simple method to browse really is essential. Someone who visits the site is looking to give. There isn't any point in making it hard for them to do so by using tabloid style headlines. Something that sums up the offer such as, You can cure a child of jiggers for £2 is what is required.

The web isn't new technology anymore. We've already proved that it's another environment where direct and personal beats abstract and broad. In other words, successful fundraising online isn't that different from successful fundraising off line.

But my money has been donated and now I'm waiting to see what I receive. The immediate feedback was a thank you from the team at See The Difference along with a photograph of them in a park somewhere. I'd rather hear something directly from Ace Africa who are actually doing the work but I understand that as I've given via See The Difference, they 'own' my details. I've ticked the boxes that allow the charity to contact me and I hope I hear from them soon.

I've also ticked all the Social Networking buttons, adding the video on my Facebook page, talking about it on Twitter and now adding it to the blog. If any of you fancy testing the site, why not join me by curing a child from Jiggers?

It'll only cost you two quid and when you watch the video you'll see how easy it is for you to cure the condition. When you donate you'll do more than cure a disease, you'll give a child the chance to walk to school or even have a game of footy. Click and have a look. Click here and give two pounds. Please.

As you'll have gathered, See The Difference is a project that I want to succeed. Donor choice, transparency, insight and feedback are all central to building great relationships with donors. And anything that attracts more donors to the sector gets my support.

I just think the big names like McCann Erickson and Accenture might have drowned out the advice from people at the IOF, NCVO and the many charities involved about what makes great fundraising. And that's concentrating on the needs of the donor rather than just presenting a whole list of projects in a nice website and hoping people will give.

I'm sure Google made some mistakes at the outset and I'm sure they are successful because they learnt to respond quickly. I think that See The Difference has loads of potential if they concentrate on the one thing Google seems to understand, it's what the user wants that counts.

Best of luck

Are twittering charities still stuck on broadcast mode?

A number of people have commented on my increasing levels of generosity over the last month or so.

It's not that I've actually given any extra money to charity. It's because I've been thinking out loud (on Twitter) about setting up a new direct debit as part of a research exercise.

I wanted to find out if charities were starting to listen and engage on Twitter or were still stuck in broadcast mode.

It was prompted by some rather impressive experiences I had with Virgin Media and American Express after publishing a few critical tweets that mentioned them by name. I've reproduced the conversation with Virgin below, but the American Express one had a similar positive conclusion.

So what happened when I creaked open my wallet and started tweeting things like...

"I wonder if I should increase my direct debit to <named charity>?"

"Thinking of setting up a new direct debit to <named charity> or <another named charity>? Can't decide which!"

"Haven't got a direct debit for a UK children's charity. Not sure which one to go for?????"

"Thinking of <named charity>, <another named charity>, <yet another named charity? Maybe others?"

Nothing.

None of the charities that I mentioned contacted me. One did start following me but didn't get in touch.

A few people started recommending their own favourite charities to me – most were small organisations that I didn't have much knowledge of – and a few were obvious jokes from people I know well.

But only two charities actually asked for a gift. First off was @lucycaldicott from CLIC Sargent and second was @VisionAfrica from Vision Africa.

As a result I'm going to be setting up a direct debit with CLIC Sargent and sponsoring a child with Vision Africa.

If you have a search under the last few days worth of tweets on Twitter using terms like "donation" or "direct debit" you'll find a couple of tweets that might be of interest. There's even the odd complaint that might be worth a response from the charity concerned.

This is obviously a tiny piece of completely unscientific research, but from what I see on a day to day basis, it's not far from the truth. If you have examples of charities that are better at looking after their tweeting donors, I'd love to hear about them.

In the meantime, here's a rather good piece on Mashable that's worth a read if you are looking for a few tips on using Twitter for customer (or supporter) service. You can read the complete article here, but in summary you should...

• See Twitter as a means to solve supporter problems, generate positive brand image, involve staff and reduce communication costs.
• Track entire conversations about your charity.
• Make supporters (and potential supporters) aware of your presence.
• Respond quickly and transparently.
• Be engaged.
• Be authentic.

It's easy to broadcast on Twitter, but it's better to connect.

PS. I haven't named the charities that I mentioned in my tweets, but if you were curious you could have a dig in my twitter history.

Social media in numbers (refreshed)

The ubiquitous Social Media in Numbers video has been refreshed. I've pulled out just a few facts for fundraisers, but it's really worth watching the whole thing.

The fastest growing segment on Facebook is 55-65 old females.

YouTube is the world's second largest search engine.

78% of consumers trust peer recommendations. 14% trust advertising.

24 of the world's largest 25 newspapers have declining circulations.

Consumers now expect companies to search for them.

25% of search results for the world's top 20 brands are links to user generated content.

Companies successful in social media listen first, sell second.

Hat tip to @daria

The twelve tweets of April

With the year skipping along quite nicely, it's time for the April Twitter round up.

It's another great crop and, as ever, it's the tweeter who found the piece that get's the credit. If there isn't anyone cited, it's from one of my own tweets.

Without more ado...

Busted Nonprofit Brand: Anatomy of a Corporate Sponsorship Meltdown via @ImagineCanada

Komen for the Cure is a massive US breast cancer research charity that is like a cross between Cancer Research UK and Breast Cancer Campaign. They are the largest grassroots breast cancer research charity in the US and run America's verion of Race for Life (Race for the Cure) which has now been adopted by a number of other countries (Germany, Italy, Puerto Rico and Egypt).

As part of their fundraising programme, Komen has linked up with KFC. Their Buckets for the Cure campaign hopes to raise $8.5 million.

This has created a bit of a stink, with a number of commentators and activists pointing out that selling millions of pink buckets of fried chicken doesn't sit particularly well with women's health. To read more about a charity that seems to have forgotten its brand promise, check out the link above.

If you are terrible at what you do, Twitter won't change that via @KimberleyCanada

Kimberley's blog features a presentation by Scott Stratten, President of UnMarketing. It's well worth watching. It argues very entertainingly that 'social media' is about building relationships and that takes time and effort. Take a look. It's worth it.

From threepenny opera to £5 direct debit via @AmandaSanter

A great post that questions why charity websites fail to show prospective donors what they'll experience once they start giving.

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks study reveal surprising stats via @Quiel

A huge benchmarking study from the US, tracking what did and what didn't work in online fundraising and advocacy. The study analyses the activity of 31 charities. The biggest increase in success was seen to be gained by improving click-through rates on emails (I have to agree with that). 

Keys to Creating a Failing Non-profit Newsletter via @JeffBrooks

This post highlights an article by Sandy Rees on the 8 most common mistakes charities make when producing newsletters and adds a few more for good measure.

How to make money from newsletters via @AlineReed

Aline shows how a charity newsletter was overhauled and turned into a money making machine.

Acknowledging Donor Loyalty

This post from The Agitator contains two simple ideas that are well worth implementing when writing to donors.

New Research Reveals Barriers to Giving via @UKCPhilanthropy

A review of a study looking at giving by high net worth individuals in the UK and the US. It contains masses of interesting information but one key point is worth highlighting. Once a donor has decided on a cause to support, how efficiently money is used and the size of admin costs become the major factors influencing which charity will receive the gift. 

Bob Geldof condemns lame and ineffective anti-poverty campaigners

An insider's view of Make Poverty History. Apparently, political leaders don't listen to charities! The comments make for interesting reading too.

Is Charity Comparative Advertising a Good Idea? via @frdetective

Helped kick off a debate about changes in rules regarding charity advertising regulation.

Ten ways to slim down obese copy via @GuyKawasaki

How to write copy that people are more likely to read.

Are there creative ways to publicly thank donors? via @marcapitman

This is an area that gets very little thought and is going to become increasingly important as a means of competitive difference. Charities put a huge amount of effort in making their appeals creative and exciting. Why not put the same effort into thanking and feeding back?

There were loads more that could have made it that lie hidden in my twitter stream. If you'd like to receive notification of everything I think might be of interest, you can follow me by clicking here.

The Twelve Tweets of March

The tradition continues with a round up of my favourite things found via Twitter over the last month.

The rules stay the same. Everything has something to do with fundraising and everything is credited to the tweeter who found it. 

Here we go...

Every big online statistic you'll ever need (or at least quite a few of them) via @millbry

A video packed full of information on the growth of social networks.

2010 Budget: There's good news and bad news for philanthropy via @UKCPhilanthropy

Donors from one EU country will now be able to give tax efficiently to charities based in another. This will be particularly important for high level fundraising.

Advertising is dead, no it isn't, yes it is via @davetrott

The best advertising isn't advertising. It is creative people out-thinking non-creative people.

In praise of the transformational fundraising entrepreneur via @kenburnett1

Why the NSPCC's Giles Pegram should be our role model. I also love the story from Bernard Ross about his brief to create an innovative fundraising product and the response from the client when he presented it.

New generational giving data (US study) via @bernardrossmc

A report on the need to integrate media channels and the continuing importance of mail (even to younger donors) from Convio.

Always split test via @seanpowell

Donor needs in action.

Donors need engagement: Leveraging brand experience to enhance donor identity and involvment via @Care2FrogLoop

Anything that encourages charities to look at brand experience rather than a logo and design guidelines is always very welcome.

Philanthropy analysis in the comics via @tactPhil

The mathematics to doing "good to your fellow man" in comic form.

Government cutbacks could wipe out 25% of charities via @cpreston

The real impact of recession will be seen in government funding cuts after the election. Now is the time to build relationships with donors rather than introduce a re-brand and talk about policies.

Facebook co-founder starts philanthropic social-networking site  via @cpreston

Jumo, created by Chris Hughes, will help people find charities and causes they care about (but how will support be encouraged?).

Fear of Philanthropy (avert your eyes) via @DavidBlenko

Unless people know how much they should give to charity, they might just decide not to give anything at all.

Write a newsletter that donors and members want to read via @jeffbrooks

If your newsletter doesn't raise as much as your appeals, you are doing something wrong.

Even though I spent half the month away from Twitter, it was still tough to choose just twelve tweets. The information available is just getting better and better.

If you want to see tweets like this as and when I find them, follow me at @markyphillips.