Elaine Gantz Wright – Page 6 – Elaine Gantz Wright

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. Find her at SocialFuse.

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?

In the latest Stanford Social Innovation Review, Angela Eikenberry, assistant professor in the School of Public Administration at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, takes issue with cause marketing as a social good. She posits, “From pink ribbons to Product Red, cause marketing adroitly serves two masters, earning profits for corporations while raising funds for charities. Yet the short-term benefits of cause marketing belie its long-term costs. These hidden costs include individualizing solutions to collective problems; replacing virtuous action with mindless buying; and hiding how markets create many social problems in the first place. Consumption philanthropy is therefore unsuited to create real social change.”

As a pioneering advocate of cause marketing concepts and strategies, myself, I must admit that Professor Eikenberry managed to stop me in my tracks. Conceptually, I’ve always considered win-win transactions that help others and need— and grease the cogs of our free enterprise system as clever marketing strategies. However, Eikenberry’s term “consumption philanthropy” rattled me. She contends, “It devalues the moral core of philanthropy by making virtuous action easy and thoughtless.”

I think is helps to dissect her ideas here. On one level, I’m not so sure it’s a bad thing that we take philanthropy off some moral pedestal and weave into our fabric of everyday awareness—making giving a part of living. I’m not so sure we should reserve it for Sunday mornings of practiced piety when we are supposed to be behaving with moral fortitude. I think the part that resonated for me was the “thoughtless and mindless” language.

I do see philanthropy as a conscious act. When it is “mindless,” we as donors miss the “joy and heart” that can make giving—transformational, as opposed to transactional. The act of giving connects us with God and the very source and beauty of our creation. Transactional or “consumption philanthropy” may diminish the motivational component of generosity. It’s related more to the purchase impulse when the trigger is tied up in one’s justification for consumption.

Her assertion that “it obscures the links between markets—their firms, products, and services—and the negative impacts they can have on human well-being” and therefore “compromises the potential for charity to better society” is another interesting one. As long as we ask corporations to support philanthropic causes, we will always have an inherent tension between the corporate profit motive and social needs. And that’s why – even with all the brilliant cause campaigns and social media initiatives underway, nonprofits can expect only a small percentage of their support from the corporate sector. A nonprofit generally raises only 5 to 15% from corporate giving, including money raised from cause marketing. Even cause marketing powerhouse Susan G. Komen that raises close to $40 million from cause marketing raises ten-fold that amount from other sources.

As for the idea of that consumption philanthropy “distracts the giver from grappling with the issues,” that may be the case. But, as I preach in my own social media consulting work, nonprofits must be constantly honing a full array of fund-development tools. Cause-marketing, social media engagement or even direct mail are not stand-alone solutions. They are all part of the astute cause advocate’s mix. Perhaps, a strong cause-marketing message might even ignite a potential donor’s passion to support anew cause.

The comments resulting from this article are as interesting as the article itself. One of the people who disagrees with Professor Eikenberry is Joe Waters, a cause-marketing expert. He has continued the discussion on his blog, Selfish Giving.

I love what Joe Waters said: “Like jazz and baseball, cause marketing is distinctly American. Born from Wall Street capitalism and heartland generosity, it reflects our market culture and is a natural way to support our favorite causes. And while Professor Eikenberry shows the ways to making cause marketing better, there’s one thing she can’t hide: the costliest thing would be not to do it at all.”
What so you think?

For more information of cause marketing and social media strategies, contact me – ellagantz@sbcglobal.net

Share this:

Share this: