July 22, 2010 104 Comments

The Problem With Social Only Nonprofit Campaigns

Over the last several days, my Twitter has flooded with people asking me to help them vote up their worthwhile charity on the Chase Community Giving campaign project on Facebook. In every case, the charity is something that deserves support (at least the ones I’ve seen). In every case, they’re great people doing worthwhile things.

The problems with using social channels heavily for things like vote-raising events like this is that it floods one’s channel with that kind of promotion. That’s problem 1.

The secondary problem is that if you’re someone with a larger following, you have to manage how many of these competitions you’re going to promote, because one begets another begets misgivings about which charities one supports and which charities one doesn’t.

By pushing a heavy campaign through something like Twitter to get votes for one’s Facebook, there’s a problem with muddying that particular stream. Everyone thinks “it’s just one tweet,” but they don’t see the other side of all the requests, and/or the companies pushing these types of vote-grabbing campaigns don’t realize the digital littering this kind of method gets.

I wish every vote cost $5, and that the $5 went into a pool for the winners. Hell, I wish every tweet requesting votes came with some kind of donation aspect to it. Then we’d raise money on the way to raising money.

I love using social media for nonprofit work. I do it all the time. But I try to be very responsible in how I use my channels and I try not to create digital litter campaigns. I’ve learned from past experiences that no one appreciates the fallout.

Thoughts? Disagreements?

Find a sponsor for your web site. Get paid for your great content. shareasale.com.

The Genesis Framework empowers you to quickly and easily build incredible websites with WordPress. Whether you're a novice or advanced developer, Genesis provides you with the secure and search-engine-optimized foundation that takes WordPress to places you never thought it could go.

With automatic theme updates and world-class support included, Genesis is the smart choice for your WordPress website or blog.

Find out more about the framework features
Check out the Genesis demo and the wide variety of child themes
See example designs in the Genesis design showcase

Become a StudioPress Affiliate

Pingback: Nonprofits and Social Media Contests « Talisman Thinking Out Loud
http://www.sueannereed.com Sue Anne Reed

I love your idea that every vote should have to contain a donation. It's the only thing that set apart America's Giving Challenge from the rest — it wasn't based on the number of votes or clicks, but it was based on the amount raised. The non-profits that raised the most, got a bonus from the Case Foundation.

I'm tired of the popularity contests. Whether it's Fast Company and the Influence Project, Pepsi Refresh or Chase Giving, they're all popularity contests. We've had an issue in one community I'm involved in where one research organization was winning, which made the national foundation upset and they started encouraging their members *not* to vote for the other organization — even though both organizations have similar missions.
http://www.danieldecker.net Daniel Decker

Just to clarify… is your gripe more so with the number of requests to promote that YOU are getting flooded with or the campaigns themselves flooding the entire Twitter channel as a whole (these campaigns showing up everywhere)?
Amy

Obviously, raising monies for non-profits is better than not, but the problem with these types of campaigns is that they are strictly popularity contests, leaving the very needy, smaller non-profits with little or no opportunity to participate. For instance, there is a story here in CT, where a physicians entire family (his wife and both daughters) was murdered in a random attack by intruders in the middle of the night. He has established a fund in their memories – the Petit Family Foundation – that benefits, among other things, women who are victims of violence but, because it's not the breast cancer foundation or other such 'popular' causes, there's no hope for a viral-like raise. I realize this doesn't really answer your question but my thoughts would be that the funds that need it most don't get it. Would be nice if there was a campaign specifically to address the smaller non-profits, but that wouldn't really serve the sponsor. oh well.
Lisa Johnson

I heard Sting answer this in an interview a couple of decades ago and it stuck in my head. “I get asked all the time and they're all worthy. I do Amnesty International and that's it].” I put all my efforts there.

Since then he's expanded a bit, he does work for Breast Cancer and other causes. But the point is, he has an opportunity to focus his celebrity to really help a small number of causes. If he slices his celebrity out and doles it out everyone loses it's full impact.

I think once you achieve some celebrity of any sort. Chris, you're certainly there. You need to focus your effort on a handful (no more) of things and just do that. You can raise a million dollars for 80 charitys or million dollars for 4. Which will do more good?

Just a thought,

Lisa
Pingback: Gasping Gremlins › Software, Erasers and Coke
http://www.careerealism.com CAREEREALISM

I completely see your point Chris. Social giving is just taking shape – it's really hard to know what will work best. A good idea in theory (for a great cause) doesn't mean it will be great in practice, right? For example…

I've been contemplating how to link our blog to the children's charity I volunteer for. I hope someday to be able to make a regular contribution on behalf of the site – we are too small for that right now. We recognized that if we could find a way to ask our readership to help us in the growth of our site, we could donate the money we saved on marketing the blog instead. We just launched the campaign in a post – too early to tell if it will get results. In short, we are trying to hit a certain number of RSS subscribers. When we do, we'll donate the money to a charity because we can estimate how much additional funds it will generate in Adsense sales if we get there. What's nice is that readers simply subscribe for free to get our career advice, but in doing so, also help a worthy cause. I have dreams of being able to chronicle in the blog the impact the readers have on donating to this children's charity. So, my fingers are crossed it happens. Here's the post about it if you are interested in seeing it:

http://www.careerealism.com/make-a-wish/
http://twitter.com/BTalisman Barbara Talisman

Chris,
Thanks for this post and your thoughts on this. Always like hearing someone not working in the nonprofit sector reaction. I agree with you and Sue Anne Reed…imagine the money, impact and serious consideration nonprofits and the “contests” could raise if each vote was a donation. $5 or $10 is worth it when I want to select and make my voice heard. Perhaps more even when so moved.

For a nonprofit, small or large, to spend all this time “engaging” volunteers, donors, followers and friends to win a popularity contest for anywhere from $2,500 to $50,000…their time could be better spent truely engaging on and off social media and raising significant money for their mission. And certainly smaller organizations don't have a chance and could do more with $25,000 or have a higher impact than the larger groups who may raise that in a day through their well planned, executed and staffed development departments.

I also consider the “CSR” aspect of these corporate campaigns. Let's not kid ourselves, it raises the profile of the company who appears to be doing great good in their communities and supposedly engaging their customers.

We need to raise money to make our nonprofits successful in meeting community needs. Are these contests an effective way to do so? Should they be a part of our development or social media plans? I think it all depends on the cost benefit analysis and the human and financial resources of the organization.
Rifkiaansyah08

nice post..like this..
http://www.cat-lovers-only.com/ Kurt Schmitt

Among the cat lovers, or animal lovers in general, there are a lot of calls for action, on Twitter and other places as well. Even with my own site, I've gotten emails over the years from people who tell me that they can't afford treatment for their cat's illness, and they want me to appeal to my readers for donations. That's a leopard with different spots, since you can't even verify these causes.

What happens sometimes when you start to promote any of these causes, though, is that people start to negotiate with you. “I'll vote for your charity if you vote for mine.” By necessity, I have to restrict myself to the number of causes I involve myself in, so those types of requests become a distraction. I like your idea, however, of raising money “on the way to raising money.”
Catherine

I have a couple of different experiences regarding this topic. First, I'm not of fan of Chase Bank (turned off by very aggressive & sneaky marketing campaigns in the past). Because of this, any charity associated with the Chase promotions feel tainted to me. Second, although I don't have as many friends & followers as you, I even get more requests than I care to. Especially on facebook which usually requires some action on my part like remove/delete the notification. For twitter, it's a little easier to ignore.

The question that comes up for me is “Does social media ultimately dilute connection to non-profits?” For me, the answer is YES.
http://aquariumdrinker.com/ davidconnell

I work for the Nature Conservancy and part of my job is helping to manage our social channels — we manage these channels through a team that pulls in members of several teams within our marketing department. I have to say I generally agree with you on the nature of these social campaigns/contests — and really, let's be blunt, they're contests to see which organization has the most social media chops/followers. Let's also not forget they always have a for-profit sponsor who reaps marketing value from the contest.

That's not to say they aren't worthwhile. When these contests are run well, all of the charities win by getting increased exposure and one or two get some real fundraising dollars at the end. But as non-profits take on these campaigns they can't for get the “social” in social media. For us, social media is about engaging in conversations with people who are passionate about the environment and preserving the World's great places. Our friends and followers will only engage with us if they feel it's a mutually beneficial relationship — they're getting information and value from us and we get their support, membership and hopefully financial contributions down the road. Engaging in too many of these contests can upset that balance and turn off friends and followers. When I look at our twitter stream I want to see lots of links, lots of information sharing and only an occasional plea for money.
http://twitter.com/StaceyKann Stacey Kannenberg

I agree with Sue Anne Reed – the popularity contest has become old. All we are doing is driving traffic and building a base of names for Fast Company, Pepsi Refresh, Start Up Nation, Oprah Own's Network, Chase Giving, American Express, etc. Some companies like Start Up Nation have gotten into the bad habit of seeming to be in contest mode all the time so much so that I an starting to have a spammy feeling about their brand. I want to be judged on merit by a qualified panel of judges rather than having to go back to my base of support to “beg” for votes every day just to help the brand build a base! I am glad to see that the prizes are really prizes, unlike a few years ago when they were really just a $50,000 or $20,000 preapproved loan.

I do love the idea about paying for a vote but I would want to make sure that the charity discloses how much of the donation is going back to the actual charity. Sadly not all non-profits are created equal and neither are contests!!
http://landflipdirtdiva.wordpress.com/ LANDFLIP'S Dirt Diva

I would have to agree with Catherine in that a lot of these companies are already the “big guys” and I'd ask what is the real charity getting from all the publicity other than a bunch of votes. Are they campaigning for a Cause or a Company??
meganstrand

As usual, Chris, you're ahead of the curve in terms of your thinking.

Social media is certainly an effective way to engage stakeholders and raise awareness for a worthy cause. The rise of these “voting” campaigns is just the current tactic – a page from the “slacktivism” book. Why are companies jumping into this cause marketing game? Because their consumers are demanding it.

I agree with yours and most of what's been said in previous comments (starting to feel “spammy”, overwhelming, diluting the real message, popularity contest feel, etc.) but I prefer to see it as a step in the evolution of cause marketing. Where does cause marketing 2.0 look like? In my book, it needs leverage consumer donation or other involvement just as you've described.

Some examples:
-American Express has done a great job raising the bar through it's Members Project, asking consumers to donate or volunteer (http://ow.ly/2f29I).
-The NYT featured a campaign by Kind Healthy Snacks that asks consumers to “Pay it Forward” to unlock corporate donations (http://ow.ly/2f26j).
-Chris Noble from Cause Media Group describes this very evolution, along with an example from Electrolux/Kelly Ripa here (video): http://ow.ly/2f20X

So THANK YOU for raising this issue – the more of us that are working to raise this bar, the better for everyone involved, especially the causes served.
Jsalerno

Hi Chris- thanks for this thoughtful post. Your point on “giving begets..” is true in all types of fundraising. It is why with more time and experience most donors focus only on those charities they truly have a passion for. I have seen several effective uses of social- smallcanbebig.org is one, there have also been several campaigns where building the nonprofits database have been the focus and not the corporate marketer- earthwatch did one last summer.
Judy Salerno, Foundation for MetroWest
dancingbaglady

These types of campaigns are great and all, but where's the meat? As a team member of Enchanted Makeovers we have benefited with monetary awards and exposure. That said, we are about inspiring and helping donors as much as we are about the women and children served through our services and events.

When donors click it is great, but we want to inspiration an action that helps them discover their gifts and worthiness as well. When they can help themselves through the act of giving from their true (H)(E)art it's a Win-Win.

This is a driving force of Modern B*a*g Ladies and our upcoming partnership with non-profit organizations. We are developing a process by which you act and help yourself, which in turn will benefit another.
Khayward

The other thing that could be a problem with this kind of civil response is that it often substitutes for taking real action. We can tell ourselves that we have done a good thing and go on about our lives, having never left our office chair (or pulled out our wallets).

It's a lot like having a great idea and then telling all your friends about it. It takes the energy that you would normally use to take action.
http://twitter.com/thinklynsen thinklynsen

There's been a lot of good commentary on this subject lately, particularly by Beth Kanter (http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2010/03/are-…) and Geoff Livingston (http://geofflivingston.com/2010/05/10/can-the-c…). On the one hand, raising awareness for charities and giving them a chance to flex their social media muscles and mobilize their bases are good things. But on the other hand, “voter fatigue” is becoming a problem. Sure, voting only takes a minute, but if we're constantly asked to do so, it loses its appeal.

I agree with you that it would be nice if there were some donation aspect to this, or if all those participating would get some kind of monetary reward for taking part in it. Because, from the nonprofit perspective, these contests take a lot of effort to promote, consuming time that could be better spent acquiring or engaging new donors and volunteers in other ways.
Scott Bush

We are building a Non-profit, GiveBack10, a wounded warrior organization, right now. From my research on what works and doesn't work this year: 1) you are right, NPOs have to choose their battles, 2) NPOs need to respect the time of their followers… loading them up with a 'vote for me' can bruise the relationship, 3) campaigns that work best are ones that are event based – they connect the campaign to one event, goal, objective that supporters can emotionally connect to (Haiti's earthquake is an extreme).

In short, supporters see the NPO asking for time and network risk without defining what the NPO will do differently to serve.
http://erinweed.com Erin Weed

I love the idea of “putting your money where your vote is.”
Dan Miller

Chris — you're right on the money with this. The process being used by these campaigns capitalizes on the fatal flaw in social media – the belief that activity equals accomplishment. That's an old erroneous belief of salespeople and it has carried over into social media. If we attached a more tangible result, as in your dollar donation example, it would clean up much of the confusion and require each of us to be more selective in what we “promote and believe in.”
http://www.riseabovethestatic.com/web-presence-development-blog Steve Birkett

It's certainly an important point for those managing these campaigns to consider, particularly on the non-profit side as often they're entirely dependent on the goodwill engendered by their cause. If that begins to erode due to a spam-like message, then social media use will have exactly the opposite effect than intended.

I think this goes back to the general principles of operating on the social web: elevating others before yourself, focusing on quality content, and avoiding direct, outright sales pitches wherever possible. Granted, causes tend to have more leeway than most as we want to hear about their good works, but here's only so much a follower will soak up before turning away…..and there are plenty more non-profits waiting in the wings to take their donations.

In that sense, I expect this phenomenon will self-regulate to a degree, in that participation will drop and negative feedback will reach the ears of the causes, requiring them to adjust their approaches.
http://www.jeffgibbard.com/ JGibbard

You raise a good point about having each vote cost $5…this is both a good thing and a bad thing. It will at least raise money from those that care enough but I think that inherently reduces the number of people that will get involved. I will usually sign someone's petition that comes to my front door but I'd rarely give them money. On the other hand I didn't think twice about texting HAITI to the Red Cross. I don't think it's the money always so much as the convenience.

I think the thing about the voting campaigns is that it's really easy to get people involved at no cost which creates buzz and engagement but little payoff. I think it's the same sort of thing as people & companies that focus on the number of followers or fans. All of those clicks of “follow” and “like” don't mean anything unless people actually DO something.
http://twitter.com/JohnLusher JohnLusher

Good thoughts and a good post Chris. If there were dollars tied to the votes, money could be raised almost exponentially and that would be good.

I wonder sometimes if we have or are reaching a saturation point with these appeals; and because of that, they are less efffective.
http://richardrbecker.com/ Rich Becker

You're right Chris.

Anytime I speak to nonprofits, I always share with them how one organization lost my support despite having an afflicted family member. I was bombarded with so many asks, guilt campaigns, and favors that I had to turn it off. I didn't want too. But daily is too much.

Likewise, I try to limit nonprofit asks for the same reason. I'd love to cover and fund them all, but when someone spreads resources too thin, you end up helping no one.

Solid points Chris. Love the $5 idea.

Rich
http://twitter.com/Robert_Rose Robert Rose

Chris…
I worked (as a Pro Bono project) with one of the first round Chase Non-Profits – EHTP.org (East Harlem Tutorial Program). Our feeling was just like yours. Basically what these types of promotions become are popularity contests – with the winner coming from whoever can get the word out to “celebrities”. I love your $5 idea – although the cash for vote thing gets a little tricky – especially when you had as many “transparency” issues that the first round Chase program had.

Having said that – we took the opportunity to take the EHTP “big idea” and turn it into an opportunity to build engagement. In other words, the contest itself can be a mechanism to start the discussion. For that very reason, even though I've met you personally, we would never target someone like you – or other folks with large “followings” that we knew weren't passionate about EHTP. Also, we knew that people would “sniff out” that the real goal here is for Chase to get your info – and that felt kind of weird as well.

So, our goal was to target and build upon a community that would already be passionate about the ideas that EHTP stands for – and use the Chase program as a way to build the discussion – and just incrementally (it worked out to exponentially) build the community. We knew it was the classic Star Trek Kobayashi Maru – no win scenario – but if we could increase the engagement they had on Facebook, Twitter and their Blog – EHTP would win no matter what.

So my point is that I completely agree with you in theory – but these things are also good opportunities for non-profits to start a discussion and engage a new constituent base they may not have before (e.g. Silk Purses from Lemonade or something like that). I'm also happy to report that while (as expected) EHTP didn't win, Chase did take notice of what EHTP was able to accomplish – and gave them an “Advisory Pick” of $37,000 for their efforts.
http://twitter.com/jasongeorges99 Jason Georges

The other issue is you are viewing this problem from a unique perspective as having a large following from multiple social circles. Most of the people that are requesting your help have a small following usually representing smaller social circles. The value of their “just one tweet” is far different than yours. The power in such a campaign comes from engaging thousands of these small circle people whose tweets are not quite as valuable.
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

I'd argue that they're *more* powerful in smaller circles, because there's much more personalization available.
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

Oddly, you might have found the *real* value. Maybe it was just enough to get someone to package their idea such that it's much more salable, and thus more fundable. Hmm.
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

I think we've only seen the start of this, by the way. As people think of social networks as free/cheap advertising, they'll get pummeled even more.
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

And the interference. It's taking over a social experience to force an action.
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

Grateful for your thoughts, Scott. Thanks for swinging by and adding your voice.
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

I'm with you, Annie, and the more that people take away from the real goal, plus the negative impact to the potential community, equals an unfun experience.
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

Voting without dollars doesn't really change much, does it?
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

You've got it. If nothing comes of it, who cares?
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

Glad you dove in, Judy. Thanks for pointing out smallcanbebig. I think it's a good example, so I'm glad you shared it.
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

I'm just an agitator, Megan. You're doing the real work. I just have to shine on it. : )
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

It's always a tricky thing. The big guy uses their voice, and that's the trade, but then the question is, “why not something bigger?” I dunno. I don't fault Chase. I just want things to be more effective.
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

True that, Stacey. There has to be even more accountability and transparency, all the way around.
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

Exposure's swell, but is it worth pissing off the community? I'm leaning on “no.” You? : )
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

Bingo. Spot on, that's what's on my mind.
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

Sounds like you're on the right path. I hope you'll share that article at some point. : )
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

But I'm not writing about me, in this case. I'm just saying that if I'm getting this, then others are, and why should our communities suffer through these popularity contests?
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

Not me specifically. It's the social space over all.
http://www.jeffgibbard.com/ JGibbard

I think the big thing to remember, and it may be difficult sometimes because you are so in the thick of it, is that most companies don't seem to have a clue about the issues you are raising. The social/human element is often left out in favor of what “I – The company” wants or needs. You are aware of it, it's part of your whole world to “Be Human” but thinking about littering an individual's stream is like collateral damage for a big company if they even think about it.

The point you made above is spot on, I think most companies think of social media as free/cheap advertising. It's often lost that it's a network of human beings. It's like the Mad Men mentality won't quit yet, there's too much invested in it.
http://www.jeffgibbard.com/ JGibbard

It doesn't on a small scale but I think in certain circumstances it does. Think about the Facebook group: MY SISTER SAID IF I GET ONE MILLION FANS SHE WILL NAME HER BABY MEGATRON That dollar-less vote changed that kid's life.

I think if that sentiment has a pay-off then it means something but just clicking like with no outcome is pointless. In spite of that, I'm going to “Like” this comment.
http://www.marcopuccia.com Marco Puccia

I agree that we need to be be responsible for not polluting our streams, but I think there are much worse culprits (like auto-tweets) than nonprofit solicitations!
http://www.akamai-marketing.com Tara Coomans

Chris –

For so many nonprofits the single biggest challenge they have is creating awareness and whether we like it cluttering our streams or not, these kinds of events DO raise awareness. This very conversation is an example.

Its up to the nonprofit to turn that awareness into money and there are many ways to do that through engagement techniques. Much as Robert points out, these campaigns are starting points. Utilizing the power of a campaign like this to identify potentially passionate (after all, sending one tweet isn't actually a great measure of passion) supporter and being able to communicate and cultivate the relationship is something direct mail (a nonprofit marketing technique of choice) just doesn't do.

Yes, these clutter my stream too, then again, there is a lot of clutter to sift through in general, at least this one isn't a mundane update about a dog.

We've all seen enough Cause Marketing Programs to know when a company is being genuine or transparent or whether its just a guise for promoting the business or collecting information (as is the case here). But the ethics of campaigns like this is a topic for another discussion.

Thanks for the conversation starter! Better than a cup of coffee!
http://dresramblings.com Andre Natta

I was actually thinking about that in relation to the Influencer Project taking place at Fast Company. It may be a little insane, but I'd rather tie someone voting for me to a tangible goal – the one floating in my mind right now would be finding an organization or a wealthy individual to sponsor my votes so that each vote raised money for a local nonprofit that I consider extremely important.

I haven't read any of the other comments, but I've started wondering if we've become so desensitized to the idea of simply being able to click a button and feel as though you've helped someone while not necessarily having to do that much… Now it's got me thinking about just how to get that done…

The Problem With Social Only Nonprofit Campaigns

ChrisBrogan.com runs on the Genesis Framework

Supporters

About

Subscribe