Online giving – Page 2 – Elaine Gantz Wright

The ROI that would be king

October 5, 2009October 5, 2009 elaine gantz wright11 Comments

ElaineGantzWright’s blog is for people interested in using the Web and online marketing to drive social change. Elaine covers social media for nonprofits, philanthropy trends, online giving, cause marketing, random life musings, and more.

The pursuit of social media ROI (return on investment) continues to vex me. Last week, my blog post featured some comments about its confounding elusiveness and sparked lively discussion—on and offline. It’s still a very hot topic—at conferences, webinars, cocktail parties, bunko nights, and marketing strategy meetings going on as I type.

Once again, I turn to one of my master media mentors—Clay Shirky. He says:

“A revolution does not happen when a society adopts new tools. It happens when a society adopts new behaviors.”

And I think that quote sums up the core conundrum. At the end of the day, social media is really not “a program” at all. It is a fundamental shift in the way customers, donors, constituents, and employees consume and produce information. It’s behavior—a change in the way we are in the world.

Therefore, the future of marketing is not about telling people things—but about doing things with and for people. Think about it. How do you calculate ROI on messaging coming from your target audience? How do you calculate ROI (an old media metric) in a new media environment? It’s a brave new world, indeed—where we are “creating an environment for coordination and collaboration.”

Even if you consider the question in old media terms, isn’t it like trying to figure ROI on your phone, your conference room, or your fax? Few of us really think about these things in relationship to ROI. But since it’s the Internet, there is still a certain geek mystique. We are a little squeamish and feel the need to “ROI everything”—even if it means constructing elaborate parallel expense models based on paid Google adwords or other media buys. But the truth is, social media will soon be the rule—not the exception. Cost of doing business. David Spark addresses some of these issues from a refreshing perspective on socialmedia.biz. The requirement that everything fit in a discrete ROI queue is simply unrealistic and soon, anachronistic.

Perhaps, a 21st century take on this question would be Return on Engagement—taking the focus away from the justification of hard costs and considering opportunity costs. What do we sacrifice if we are not involved? What are the benefits—tangible and intangible—of spending your time monitoring and creating conversation? What business or donor involvement have you created?

Rules of Engagement

Still, even in the ROE context, just having a blog, Facebook account, or Twitter profile does not a social media strategy make. The fabric of social media success is woven from many threads and yarns, including compelling content, irresistible contests/quizzes, provocative video/photos, and authentic voices. You wouldn’t use just one traditional channel to market your product or organization, so it is probably not useful to think that one Twitter account or a blog post by itself can somehow produce ROI—or even ROE—overnight. Attributing a direct revenue equation to an isolated social media marketing activity simply isn’t relevant or accurate. Though weak individually, coordinated social media activities can certainly move the needle.

Engagement fosters affinity, trust, commitment—and ultimately, investment. Marketing has become equal parts science and art. Remember, creating a blog on WordPress of Blogger is free. Right now, Facebook and Twitter are free. So, social media’s costs are mostly labor, time, and creative energy. Therefore, social media success really comes down to commitment, clarity about your objectives, and getting over your fear of exposure—a horse that has already left the barn, I might add. Also, it helps if you have something to say that will interest your audience. Whether you call it—ROI, ROE, or RBI (wait, that’s baseball), here are some thoughts on how to plan, launch, and execute an effective social media plan:

• Focus on conversation, content, and benefits—not tools and technology
• Highlight intangibles
• Justify qualitative, as well as quantitative objectives.
• Compare costs of alternatives, benefits, and of not doing anything.
• Use pilot projects to test and evaluate
• Streamline data collection
• Get buy-in by using a cross-functional team or committee
• Release your fear

The pre-social media business universe was built on linear measurement. I think it’s time to consider using a different kind of yardstick—something with multiple dimensions and constant movement, something we have yet to invent. If small is the new big and free is the new economic engine, what are the new metrics? Is it time to get comfortable with a whole new level of ambiguity. What do you think?

Listening Lessons

September 29, 2009October 26, 2009 elaine gantz wright9 Comments

“To listen well is as powerful a means of influence as to talk well, and is as essential to all true conversation.”
-Chinese Proverb

I attended a meeting of social media aficionados last week—the Dallas Social Media Club. It was a vibrant group of new-media-savvy folks with cutting-edge interests and razor-sharp wits. I loved the energy in the room and the combination of slightly smug awareness and wide-eyed curiosity about what might replace Twitter as the next techno-networking phenomenon. Officially, “the Social Media Club Dallas focuses on social media practitioners in corporate, agency, and PR roles—primarily interested in how the medium to large enterprises are leveraging social media to reach, engage, and most important, drive revenue.”

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, Thursday evening’s confab consisted primarily of “vendor” types—as the speaker, Chris Vary, VP of Weber Shandwick’s Digital Division, noted when he conducted a quick poll of the room. I think this strongly indicates that the social media charge is still led by the practitioner-evangelists, and that most businesses, small to large to small (including nonprofits), have still not seen the proverbial light. On a practical level, they have not figured out how to integrate it into everyday operations.

As I have posited in past posts, I believe this is because it is more than a change of media. It is a change of mentality. That’s a tougher paradigm to shift. Clay Shirky is one our most articulate voices around the gestalt of this communication transformation, yet it’s still a bit slippery.

As I interact with nonprofits and small businesses, I struggle to identify ways to provide high-value impact. So many complain that they have set up their various social platform accounts on Facebook, Twitter, and Linked In, but they sit dormant—like throwing a party and no one attends. Still, nonprofits and for-profits are tentative about investing—staff time, budgets, mindshare to the care and feeding of these communities without tangible proof of ROI. I was amazed when the PR big wheels at Weber Shandwick had to cajole their Fortune 10 client— General Motors, to commit to social media. It took three years. They had to construct some sort of elaborate expense metaphor quantifying projected Google pay-per-click costs.

So, more and more, I’m thinking it is really all about listening. I’m not too keen on the concept of “active listening,” because I think that is redundant and a little cheesy, as my teenage sons say. “Passive listening” is simply not paying attention in my book. (That reminds me of some relationships I’ve had.) That said, I think businesses should first approach social media as a listening tool, as opposed to a communications tool—an ear as opposed to a mouth. I think that helps marketers diminish some of the execution-related tension. All of the social media gurus—from Beth Kanter to Seth Godin, recommend starting with listening. However, I’m now thinking this should be the fundamental objective—allowing other opportunities to blossom.

Really, social media is a gift to market research professionals—a way to gather real-time and real customer feedback inexpensively. Then, the way we respond can dramatically enhance, strength, and embellish our brands in this new context of conversation. Crafting the response becomes the artistry. We can provide customer service, build relationships, or even soothe the ruffled feathers of cranky influencers/bloggers. This must be authentic, customer-validating, spin-free conversation.

Chris Vary talked about the new PR being the “virtual newsroom.” He is definitely on to something. We as public relations and communications professionals must me become more like monitors than marketers. Great places to start include: (Begin with the free ones.)

• Technorati
• Google Alerts
• Social Mention
• Delicious
• Twitter
• Radian 6

RSS feed rules:

Your feed dashboard becomes your roadmap. Set up Google Reader, iGoogle, or Bloglines to track—organization names, names of key leaders/board members, other players in your space, industry terms, your URLs, possible controversial subjects, etc. Get creative with keywords. And as Beth Kanter advises, involve the entire operation in the process. Here’s Beth’s great presentation:

Move social media out of the silo of the communications department. Empower all of your employees as listeners. Then, your social media strategy looks more like a training initiative for your various constituents and stakeholders. Brainstorm keywords, learn how to respond effectively, and handle red-flag issues. This is where social media gets organic, integrated, and exponential in impact.

Are you listening?

Finessing Facebook

August 31, 2009August 31, 2009 elaine gantz wright3 Comments

Randi Zukerberg of Facebook delivered the keynote address at the recent Summer of Social Good Conference hosted by Mashable! It was the quintessential industry summit for social media and cause geeks. Randi’s presentation was covered by the Wall Street Journal – conjuring up the ubiquitous question I hear in the field – “I have a Facebook page. Now, what?” And that is the $64,000 question, isn’t it? Actually, $4000 would be nice—or even $40, for that matter.

Given this conundrum, one of the most interesting announcements was Facebook’s plan to pilot “virtual charity giving” to users. Initially, the proceeds will support micro-lender Kiva, Project Red, the World Wildlife Fund, and Tom’s Shoes. Plans are to roll out the feature more broadly after testing.

In a test starting this week, these alpha organizations will each offer 1-2 gifts at $5 or $10 each. Facebook users will be able to buy these gifts for friends, and the proceeds will go to the charity associated with the gift. This is essentially an extension of an increasingly popular offline concept – the idea of giving a gift to a recipient’s favorite charity as a present.

This isn’t the first time Facebook is experimenting with virtual gifts for charity—earlier this year, they launched a similar initiative upon hitting the 200 million member milestone. However, as Facebook moves further into gifts and payments, perhaps rivaling PayPay, charity gifts may become a staple of the site.

According a Facebook, “This is an alpha initiative and is not available to other charities at this time, but we may open up the program to new partners in the future pending the results. It is our goal to give our users a way to support the causes and issues that are important to them on a global scale.”

Still, nonprofit blogger Beth Kanter reported, “Skeptics in the audience tweeted about the limitations of tool-centric campaigns and wondered if, at the end of day, there was any on-the-ground social change. Or was it all hype?” To these folks, I say that the tools are only as effective as the strategy which drives them. They are just hype if they are not seen as an integrated component of an overall engagement strategy.

It’s really all about expectations. A one-off viral campaign may pull in a thousand dollars, a couple of hundred, or none — but the process of building awareness and affiliation for the duration should be is a core value. Creating real commitment takes time—and typically, a variety of contacts and “touches,” a we say in development. As a seasoned nonprofit professional, I cannot overstate the importance of the cultivation process. Seldom do you meet a new visitor at the door for your museum and say, “Excuse me, can you give me $50,000, today.” You date before you marry. Yet, there are cause sites on the web that are attempting to raise money in more of a “one-night-stand” style. “Hey, you know me. I like this organization. Give me money.” But to be effective in the long term, organizations must learn to capture that casual flirtation in the Facebook discussion sting and weave it into the overall cultivation effort. That’s why seamlessly integrating the Facebook page with the organization’s website is so important.

After all, Facebook has exploded in popularity, because it gives our intimacy-starved lives a way to forge and maintain human relationships in a frantic, chaotic world of drive-thrus, drop-offs, and pick-ups. We are communicating but not interacting. Though they may seem trivial at times, these online conversations are feeding us and the things we hold dear. But after all is said and done, nonprofits must first state their cases for support—then ask for investment.

So, even with the newest “virtual giving gadget” on Facebook, I still believe the gold in the online interactive community is just that – interaction. We are offering like minds and hearts ways to connect around life-changing missions. Isn’t that what we truly thirst for—shared passion and an authentic soul connection? You may be thinking, “Golly, Elaine, it’s a stretch to consider that self-actualization is a viable byproduct of Facebook, but the act of participation can help donors and advocates move along that path more rapidly.

Here are a few other high-level thoughts:

• Don’t rely on groups on Facebook. Be sure to create a “Fan Page” to take advantage of the viral potential. See the example of my SocialFuse landing page.

• More than 8 million Facebook users become “fans” of new pages each day, and the site’s fastest-growing demographic is users over 35, who are more involved in fundraising efforts.

• Be a little less “formal” and try a few fun updates and other content that communicates truth and personality sans spin—especially photos and videos.

• Try not to clutter your pages with too many applications. Leave room for conversation.

In addition, big companies, including Target, Intel and Kellogg, have been polling the site’s 250 million users as to where they should be donating money or goods, so an engaged Facebook fan base can benefit organizations on many levels.

What do you think? Let me know how you are using Facebook?

Tweet Surrender: The Truth about Twitter

July 10, 2009November 20, 2022 elaine gantz wright6 Comments

The decibel level of Twitter buzz only continues to crescendo. Harvard Business School is even studying the complexities of Tweet-ology. A Harvard MBA student examined the activity of a random sample of 300,000 Twitter users in May of this year—to try to understand the phenomenon that is Twitter. We hear it referenced almost daily—and more and more, you can follow just about anyone or anything on Twitter, but what’s really going on? And this begs the question—just how do we make it work for us?

Continuing along my own journey of social media comprehension, I have to admit I was startled by this recent data—especially in comparison to what I know about other popular social media sites, such as Facebook. The researchers discovered that 80% of those sampled were “followed by” or “followed” at least one user. By comparison, only 60 to 65% of other online social media site members have at least one friend (measuring these stats for sites at similar levels of development). This suggests that entrenched, active users really do understand exactly how Twitter works. (Unlike much of the non-Web 2.0 world.) The initiated get it — not really too much of a revelation, methinks.

However, it’s the metrics around gender behavior that particularly intrigue me. Although men and women follow a similar number of Twitter users, men have 15% more followers than women. And, men also have more reciprocated relationships, in which two users follow each other. This “follower split” suggests that women are driven less by followers than men, or perhaps they have more stringent criteria for reciprocating relationships. This seems somehow counter-intuitive, though—especially given that females hold a slight majority on Twitter—45% are men, and 55% are women.

Even more enlightening is— who follows whom:
• A man is two times more likely to follow another man than a woman.
• A woman is 25% more likely to follow a man than a woman.
• A man is 40% more likely to be followed by another man than by a woman.

This cannot be explained by different tweeting activity, either, because both men and women tweet at the same rate. These results are remarkable in light of previous social media research. On other social networks, most of the activity is focused around women. Men seem to follow content produced by women they do and do not know, and women follow content produced by women they know.

Generally, men receive comparatively little attention from other men or from women. The researchers conjectured that perhaps men and women find the content produced by other men on Twitter more compelling than on other social networks. And maybe, men find the content produced by women less compelling because of the lack of photo sharing, detailed biographies, etc. After all, men are visual creatures.

Or could the cryptic nature of the 140-character-post limit and truncated URLs inhibit more meaningful sharing—that women often prefer? It’s a thought-provoking question.

Overall, Twitter’s usage patterns are also very different from a typical online social network. On Twitter, there is a small, very active user group. Specifically, the top 10% of Twitter users accounted for over 90% of tweets. Oh, there’s that old 90/10 rule again! Fundraising 101, indeed. On a typical online social network, the top 10% of users account for only about 30% of all production.

From this perspective, Twitter is actually more of a one-way, asynchronous communication vehicle than a two-way, peer-to-peer network. Perhaps nonprofits can harness the platform for a new way of crowd fundraising? Worth considering. The leaders initiate and the followers acquiesce. Hmmm . . . a whole new way to think about the social web? Perhaps a new social science. I wonder.

What do you think? @ellagantz

From the Bazaar to the Cathedral

June 26, 2009June 26, 2009 elaine gantz wright2 Comments

I had an energizing partnering conversation with a dynamic nonprofit consultant this week. It’s one of the things I love most about my work—networking and brainstorming with passionate, bright professionals about maximizing support of nonprofit organizations. Carlo Cuesta is part of a firm based in Minneapolis called Creation in Common. Love the notion. And, I love the Twin Cities, because I spent my salad days (in addition to most of my snow days) there working for the glorious Guthrie Theater—one of the foundational forces of our nation’s regional theater movement. In its vision statement, CIC states, “Engaged collaboration is the ultimate method in which to create vibrant communities working in harmony toward a shared vision. Knowledge is in constant motion and is formed through playful interaction, the active exchange of ideas and concepts, and the testing of solutions that lead to enlightening truths and courageous failure.”

This is a perfect description of social media.

There is much lively banter and conversation across the various Web 2.0 groups I frequent about nonprofit engagement in social media. Do nonprofits get it? How should they do it? Are they really ahead of the private sector curve? Does anyone know how to measure ROI? Why should they spend the time? How do they integrate into my communication plan?

All of these are valid questions—and worth answering as soon as possible. But one post I read definitely sums up my feelings. Richard Lewis, a new media pro, says, “The most important consideration for the use of social networking is that if you choose not to participate, you are still part of the discussion, but you just do not have a voice.” It’s all about finding your own, distinctive, effective voice in the sometimes overwhelming cacophony.

Actually, many analogies are emerging around social media— “the cocktail party,” “circus,” etc. But, I really liked Carlo’s concept – “the bazaar.” Marketing has been carried out to date more “cathedral style.” Organizations traditionally deliver messages as if we were speaking to a focused, almost sedentary audience—their congregations, if you will. The social media landscape really is a more like a flea market or a bazaar. It’s a free-for-all of experiences and ideas with the incessant, media-driven competition for attention and interaction. It’s about distraction and short attention spans. Carlo contends that our task as marketers is create that bridge or portico—that provides a path into the organization’s “cathedral.”

What a useful image! Yes, we do need to lead friends into our figurative cathedrals. Perhaps we can do that more effectively by offering opportunities to engage and converse on our very own web sites. Through our own hosted, customized communities?

But, we also need to meet the fish where they swim. Such as:

• Twitter — micro-blogging
• Flickr, Picasa — photo-sharing
• LinkedIn, Facebook — social networking
• YouTube, Vimeo – video-sharing
• WordPress, Blogger, Typepad – blogging
• Slideshare, YELP – Info-sharing

The context has changed—and to succeed, our tactics must be decentralized, as well. We are communicating and responding in real time—on the fly and with a whole new mojo (as my teenage son would say).

So, it seems our goal in the long run is to cultivate and empower these various communities of affinity—whether they emerge in our own cathedrals—or in the hearts of those we serve in the remotest corners of the vast virtual universe.

What are your thoughts?

The Paradigm Has Shifted

June 4, 2009June 5, 2009 elaine gantz wright1 Comment

While most of us in the nonprofit world may still be debating the viability of direct mail (snail variety) versus online giving, statistics have been released indicating social media participation has now surpassed — even email. You cannot ignore the buzz about social media any longer — it’s here, and it’s powerful.

Last month, the New York Times reported that time spent engaged in online communities increased 883% between February 2003 and February 2009. Time spent viewing video online increased 1905% between February 2003 and February 2009. Combine this with NTEN’s 2009 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study revealing that online gifts in 2008 increased 43% over 2007, with total dollars raised online increasing 26%–and you have a reason to pay attention.

Still, with this explosive growth in use of social networks, so many organizations are asking “How do you effectively deploy a social media strategy, and what is the return on investment (ROI)?” The trouble with social media to date has been that it’s difficult to measure results.

No doubt, many executive directors have been heard to proclaim, “We need to get on the Twitter!” But the important question to answer first is “Why?” It’s so easy to fall prey to the “Latest Big Thing” Syndrome, whether you are a nonprofit, political organization, or company. Diving headlong into the latest technology or social media tool without asking those basic questions—Who, What, What, Where, When, How, and Why?—can lead to frustration and failure. That old adage comes to mind, “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will take you.”

Think ROI – Investment divided by return.

And, don’t forget expectation. The return may be only partially monetary. Objectives may include anything from building awareness, getting feedback on project relevance, expanding prospects/followers, or raising money. Here are some useful ways to think about effectiveness:
• Conduct awareness studies—prior to launch and at milestone intervals, such six months, year, etc.
• Track referral sites—identify the “web destinations” of people who respond to your message.
• Track traditional site metrics, such as unique visits, page views, and time spent on your site.
• Monitor your Net Promoter Score (customer loyalty scale of 0-10 that asks how likely you would be to refer an organization to a friend).
• Benchmark the number of friends/fans/followers on a particular social network or community.
• Measure the number of gifts made or dollars raised within a certain time frame or in response to a specific appeal.
• Measure brand visibility.
• And, of course, does it satisfy the boss?

This is not a comprehensive list, but it is a great place to start. The next step is to develop smart ways to integrate your social media combustion into your other marketing initiatives to turbo-charge your impact.

Finally, as you ponder your course, let me remind of the 2008 presidential campaign—not Barack Obama, but Ron Paul. It was a small scrappy campaign. And it all started with the infamous “money bombs,” the initial supporter-driven efforts to raise millions in a single day—Nov. 5th, 2007. Now, that’s a measurable result. This occurred without huge email lists, paid media, or even strategic campaign leadership. The result as $4.3 million raised in a single day. They repeated it later with $6 million raised in a single day. Anything is possible.

Do you have examples or thoughts? Comment below. Or, if you want to begin expanding your social media reach today, contact me — ellagantz(at)sbcglobal.net

Changing the World with Social Media

May 28, 2009May 29, 2009 elaine gantz wrightLeave a comment

Beth Kanter is always on the leading edge of social media adoption and integration. She is the ultimate nonprofit social media maven and was recently featured on Mashable. Here are some of her fundamental assessments of ways social media is shaping the nonprofit world:

Giving the message intimacy and relevance.
A few weeks ago, the March of Dimes supporters came out in droves for a networked memorial service for a toddler named Maddie. The community raised tens of thousands of dollars for the March of Dimes in Maddie’s memory as well as covering the funeral costs for the family. The organization did little to stage this event. The March of Dimes has embraced openness and inspired their stakeholders to feel empowered enough to take action on their own.

Making birthdays matter.
Social media is enabling individuals to create, join, and grow groups around issues they care about. I love the way DonorsChoose providing a way to make birthdays a reason to give. And Stephen Colbert is setting the pace with “Birthday Give Back” . And as Beth says, keep an eye out for more social apps with a conscience that will offer even more creative ways for supporters to self-organize and take action around causes. As non-profits begin to engage their own communities in these online conversations, they are able to reach more people than ever before, and using less effort doing so. As Maddie Grant, a partner at SocialFish, observes, “We can all be change agents and that has to be good for the entire nonprofit industry, as long as organizations adapt to this new way of being part of a two-way conversation and groundswell of social responsibility.”

Integrating media.
An interesting example of crowd-sourcing by a nonprofit comes from Michael Tilson Thomas, artistic director of the San Francisco Symphony with the recent performance of the YouTube Symphony Orchestra. The performers were selected from thousands of video auditions from around the globe. The finalists were winnowed down by a jury of professional musicians, not unlike a traditional audition, but the winners were crowd-sourced by YouTube users via online voting. The resulting “mashed up” symphony orchestra, had more than 90 players representing over 30 countries.

Driving social change “in house.”
Danielle Brigidia, who is responsible for social media strategy for National Wild Life Federation , says “Internally, we have started to focus on cross-promoting our ideas and programs more thanks to social media tools like Yammer (internal Twitter).” Carrie Lewis, social networking strategist for the Humane Society of the US, observes how their Internet is now working differently. “We have daily 9 minute meetings. Short meetings have helped them be more efficient and effective with every aspect of social media campaigns.”

It’s going to be an exhilarating ride. Join us — and share your stories.

Clarifying Nonprofit Transparency

May 7, 2009May 8, 2009 elaine gantz wright3 Comments

Transparency is the media buzz word du jour—for our government, the Wall Street bailout, and for nonprofits. But I think the meaning and precise implications are a bit murky. Perhaps we need some transparent clarity? How does the call for transparency really apply in a practical way to nonprofits? As fiduciaries of organizations held in the public trust, how do we effectively translate the value for donors, development officers, and nonprofit organizations?

Guidestar.org recently conducted a study on nonprofit transparency. A review of 1,800 nonprofit websites revealed good news and bad news about the state of nonprofit transparency. In this context, Guidestar was actually assessing disclosure practices. They found that 93 percent of the nonprofits surveyed disclose information about their programs and services online.

However, they questioned the relevance of the actual data provided. The bad news was that only 43 percent posted their annual reports; 13 percent posted their audited financial statements, and a minuscule three percent posted their IRS letters of determination. Here are Guidestar’s steps for increasing transparency:

• Nonprofits should regularly update their websites with current, detailed program and evaluation information.
• In addition to posting names and titles of board and key staff members, nonprofits should post brief biographic information for these important leaders.
• All nonprofits should post these documents on their websites: annual report (if produced), audited financial statement (if available), copies of current and recent 990s, and IRS letter of determination.

And one additional note— if you use a third-party, social media tool to help you generate engagement and donations that is powered by Network for Good.org, http://www.networkforgood.org, be sure to register for Donor Tracking reports.

Whether you use Facebook Causes, or YourCause.com, it’s essential to know exactly who is making the contributions through the social media portals—giving you the opportunity to do proper stewardship and cultivation. And speaking of transparency, this is particularly critical with an organization such as Network for Good, which is technically a nonprofit organization, as well as a conduit for nonprofit giving. We as professionals must require full contact data disclosure on donors through these sources—including donors who have requested that their gifts be listed as anonymous—since we maintain the same vigilance about honoring those wishes for donors who make donations directly to our organizations.

What do you think?

Contently Managing Social Media

April 23, 2009June 29, 2009 elaine gantz wright1 Comment

It’s here—the social media tidal wave. You know you need to dive in, but where and how? How do you start? Do you “Tweet,” “Facebook,” “Friend,” “Blog,””Post,” “Follow,” “Poke,” or “IM”? There’s a whole new list of verbs my high school English teacher never even imagined. When do you do it? How often? What is the message? How do you monitor, and how do your manage it all? All of these questions can stop you in your tracks. And for good reason. But the power of social media is undeniable—now a potent, mainstream driver of connection and engagement. However, like any high-octane tool, you should consider and plan for the consequences—intended and unintended.

Even Oprah’s doing it. According to market tracker Hitwise, traffic to Twitter went up 43% in a before and after survey of the “Oprah Effect.” Additionally, on April 17th, the day of Winfrey’s first Tweets, 37% of visits to Twitter.com were new visitors, Hitwise says. By comparison, Hitwise says Facebook’s ratio of new visitors in March were 8%. And Ashton Kutcher’s recent competition with CNN put charity tweeting on the map! He emerged victorious in his broadly publicized race to be the first to line up over one million followers. Now Mr. Kutcher, or for the Twits out there—@aplusk, will donate $100,000 to the “Malaria No More” fund to diminish the spread of the deadly disease through net distribution.

Still, the question looms large— How do you maximize the impact without jeopardizing your carefully crafted and protected nonprofit brand? You may have heard about the Domino’s pizza employees who caused the company severe heartburn recently with their less-than-tasteful YouTube video that featured disgusting food-handling techniques. (We’ll just leave it at that.) Here are the details if you are so moved. It had hundreds of thousands of views before Domino’s reacted with a positive message on YouTube where this started. So what if something like this happens to you? Here are some recommendations:

1. Set up Google Alerts. Monitor what people are saying about your organization online. Keep tabs on Twitter (via Tweetbeep )and YouTube.
2. Assess the message, the messenger, and the audience. Are you dealing with one crazy loose cannon with no audience? Or if you feel the message is hitting your audience or it is picked up by traditional media, you may want to draft release a credible response. Ignoring it could backfire.
3. Respond quickly and responsibly. Slow reactions have a negative public relations impact. Web 2.0 replicates messages exponentially. You don’t want something to expand outside your sphere of influence. Just be authentic and sincere. Avoid a defensive posture. “We are addressing this issue or the source of this misinformation, etc.”
4. Respond in the right context. Respond to a Tweet on Twitter or to a video with a video on YouTube—thus containing the controversy in the community where it originated.
5. Stay in the conversation. You cannot spin it with a press release. Invite response, address questions transparently—and be prepared to engage in a continuing dialogue.

How are you monitoring your brand and your message on the social media frontier?

Culivating Serious Online Relationships

April 16, 2009April 18, 2009 elaine gantz wrightLeave a comment

Target Analytics, a Blackbaud company, recently released the 2008 donorCentrics™ Internet Giving Benchmarking Analysis. The findings confirmed that online giving is becoming an “increasingly significant source” of funds for nonprofit organizations. This is really no major revelation. The stats validate the results of the recent Presidential Campaign, as well as other research — including the 2008 AFP Survey, revealing that the only area of fundraising that tracked an increase over 2007 was online giving. Still, the challenge remains—how do you integrate online and offline fundraising channels to optimize long-term success for your organization? “With direct mail, the blueprints for success are well-known, but in this new multi-channel world everything is new and many strategies are still unproven.” said Rob Harris of Target Analytics.

Key findings from the 2008 Internet Giving Benchmarking Analysis:
• Online giving still represents a relatively small portion of donors and revenue at most organizations, but it is growing rapidly and is becoming an important source for new donor acquisition.
• Online donors are younger and have higher incomes than traditional direct mail donors.
• Online donors give larger gifts and, as a result, have a higher overall long-term value than donors to more traditional giving channels like direct mail, but they are less loyal in terms of repeat giving.
• The online giving channel must be an integrated part of an entire direct marketing program.
• Donors in the southwest and mountain regions of the United States are disproportionately more likely to give online.
• Differences in revenue per donor and retention rates between online and offline donors are consistent across geographical regions.

Interestingly, offline donors do not generally migrate to online giving, but online donors do migrate to offline channels in large numbers. Therefore, it’s important for your organization to have a donor “moves management” strategy in place to keep your online donors engaged and giving. It’s all about the relationship and potential donor value. One-time gifts are nice, but they will not do your organization any good in the long term, because online donors tend to downgrade—even disconnect when they move offline. Cultivation is key.

Other interesting findings:
• Even with its recent growth, online giving is still dwarfed by direct mail in aggregate.
• Online donors have a slightly lower retention rate than traditional donors. Perhaps it’s the difference in attention span?
• Online giving is not a strong renewal channel. Large numbers of online donors migrate away from online giving and to other channels, primarily direct mail.
• Direct mail donors rarely give online.
• Having an email address on file makes a positive difference in the giving behavior of offline donors.

Study background:
Over the past three years, Target Analytics held a series of annual meetings with twenty-four national nonprofit organizations on the subject of online fundraising. The primary purpose was to give each organization participating the information needed to benchmark its own online fundraising program performance against those of peer organizations—and to provide a forum for sharing best practices about online fundraising tactics and integrated marketing strategies.

How do you make the most of online giving?

elaine

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: