Reflecting on Social Media Fundraising
A few weeks ago I attended the New York City Twestival—an international fundraising event on behalf of charity:water that took place in over 160 cities around the world, sparked by word-of-mouth marketing via twitter. In NYC we raised over $24,000 enough for 5 wells that will serve 200 people for 20 years. That’s truly remarkable. While the event was a success there is still much to think about.
Lessons Learned:
Small donations can have a huge impact: We learned this during the Obama campaign but it certainly was clear during the twestival where donations of $20, $40, and $60 amounted to $24,000.
Tangible goals are great motivators: People like seeing the results of their work. Knowing that there is an end goal excites people.
Volunteers and great planning are still important: Online marketing and fundraising were only half the process. All of the twestivals were coordinated by volunteers and each city had a different event to cater to local interests.
Questions raised:
How are those relationships sustained and developed? I didn’t get any significant follow up and am wondering how (if at all) my connection to the organization and my impressions of the event are being measured.
Are people giving to the cause or giving because of the medium? While at the event there was little talk of charity:water. In fact there was little talk of anything given the loud music, photo opps, and alcohol. The ease of donating and the fun that was promoted may have meant more than the cause itself.
Is social media propelling a new kind of donor? The long term investment aspect of fundraising is pushed aside in favor of immediate results and small amounts of requested giving. Perhaps much of the follow up and presentation of a “worthy cause” is not necessary. Is this kind of event similar to parties where the money happens to go to a worthy cause but the emphasis is really on the socializing and having a good time?
Moving forward:
For all of the discussions about the ease and fun of social media, it is still time intensive and raises many questions. Instead of using it as sole means of raising money, it may work well with smaller, targeted needs used in conjunction with other methods of fundraising.
Have you had any experience raising money using social media ? Attend another twestival? Please share your thoughts!
Excellent reflection! I just added to the case studies I wrote on this
http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2009/02/amanda-rose-twe.html
http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2009/01/twestival-here.html
[Reply]
Good thoughts here. I feel like I had the same experience at the DC Twestival.
Biggest missed opp for them, imho, lies with relationship development. Take me along for the journey- show me video, send me email updates for what you’re doing thanks to my contribution, offer me opportunities to physically get involved.
James
@jaywalk1
[Reply]
Great thoughts Allison. I’ve had similiar thoughts about the lack of follow-up, the lost opportunity to turn us into ongoing supporters of Charity:Water. I was a DJ at the DC event and I still don’t know how much money we raised for instance.
But I think your point about the emphasis being on socializing and having a good time and not on the charity is a good one as well. I used to organize a lot of charity dance parties in Australia and our goal was always to make them worthwhile events in their own right, on a par (or, actually, exceeding) any comparatively-priced event, and our hope that people would have an amazing time, not feel virtuous simply by the fact the money went to charity. But we also tried to embed the charities into the event, with materials, sign-up sheets, donation opportunities, projections etc.
I think charity:water did this but managing an effective presence across 160 events is obviously a huge challenge.
I’m looking forward to the next Twestival and hope to see some of these learning’s lead to improvements.
[Reply]
Good article on social media Fundraising…
[Reply]
@James and Tom: Nice to hear people from DC! I think the follow up is critical regardless of the means. You should know how much money was raised at the very least!
And Tom, the challenge was certainly the size of the event. In Beth’s case study she examines some of the challenges and how they can be addressed–you should def check it out! http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2009/02/amanda-rose-twe.html
[Reply]
You raise a really great question. I heard someone at CARE say a couple years ago that, in reference to lobbying, we are past the point of theory. In other words, it’s not too hard to convince people that a cause is “worthy” of their money anymore, especially when you are talking about the biggest users of social media- young people. In my experience anyway, this generation seems much more open to jumping on board with various causes (while maybe only giving $20 to each place) whereas our parents are more likely to have researched and picked just 2 or 3 organizations and then become significant long term supporters.
But the good news is, when someone has actually given that $20 to charity:water once, they will be much more likely to give them $200 in the future when they have more money to give!
I just recently discovered your blog and I love it. Keep it up!
[Reply]
ajlovesya Reply:
March 6th, 2009 at 8:16 am
@Laura-thanks for stopping by!
“But the good news is, when someone has actually given that $20 to charity:water once, they will be much more likely to give them $200 in the future when they have more money to give!”
Will they? We know that this is true with donors who have had come kind of on-going contact with an organization, but as James stated above, he would like more than just a cool party and isnt getting it. And while my generation has no problem giving $20 here and there, the international twestival was well short of its goal of raising $1 million and in terms of over all costs for an organization, $24K is great but is a drop in the bucket in terms of capital and programmatic costs which is why I suggested this is a great fundraising effort for small specific needs, but am hesitant to make it the main fundraising strategy.
I agree with you though on how social media may compel people to donate without needing much convincing. Social media changes in WHO is doing the convincing. Peer-to-peer recruitment is much stronger than blind junk mail that has little personal connection. But through social media how can we ensure that people will donate again especially if I can just give a few bucks to everyone when we know much more is needed?
[Reply]
What I meant was that from a psychological standpoint, studies have shown that if someone makes a small gesture on behalf of a cause, they are much more likely to make a big gesture later. For example, a study was done that showed when people wear a button for 3 days in a row that says “Give blood”, they are something like 30% or 40% more likely to actually give blood when asked two weeks later (compared to the control group who did not wear the button). I couldn’t find the specifics for that study after quickly flipping through my social psych textbook, but I can get them later for you if you want. The connection here is that once someone has given $20 to you, they feel like they are personally invested. They now have a special tie to you because they have given you their hard earned money. So if given a list of charities to choose from in the future, chances are they would choose yours because they now “know” yours.
Besides the obvious necessity of data tracking (adding donors to your mailing list, etc.) I do think that you are right about the tangible part. Now that you have all these new donors, make sure they get follow-up on the 200 people who will benefit from the new wells. This is why child sponsorship is such a genius idea. People have no idea that when they send $30 a nonprofit, that money does not actually go into the hands of the child, but to the community where their child lives, in order to support the school and fix roofs and everything else that needs to happen in that location. What people care about is that there is a child sending them pictures and letters and report cards.
I am sure you already know all of that. But maybe the answer, then, is having “gradations” in the kinds of events that you do- throwing the loud, fun parties for first time givers, then targeting that group with invitations for more issue-focused events, like concerts or movie screenings. Like casting a wide net the first time, and then upping the “ask” a little bit at each following event? And above all, capture an email address or something the first time they give.
Wow, this is a long comment… sorry for babbling!
[Reply]
Hi Laura,
Interesting comment: “People have no idea that when they send $30 a nonprofit, that money does not actually go into the hands of the child, but to the community where their child lives, in order to support the school and fix roofs and everything else that needs to happen in that location. What people care about is that there is a child sending them pictures and letters and report cards.”
Maybe I’m not the normal donor, but I’d be way more inclined to give larger amounts if I knew that my money went to “support the school and fix roofs and everything else that needs to happen in that location.” Seems like it touches more people, improves more lives.
Also, I get so numb from the hundreds of campaigns putting the children up. Almost like some sort of overload, but the idea of improving a community, I can handle.
[Reply]
@Laura–Ok! Now I see what you are saying and it makes sense. And there certainly are gradations in giving. For example, most people may first interact with the Susan G. Komen Foundation through their breast cancer runs/walks, giving small amounts though this specific event. But through follow up these donors are cultivated. Of course, these events are necessary and not everyone who donates at this event will become a major donor (isnt it something like 20% of donors give 80% of money? ) but outside of money having people who support you and think of your cause is a great thing.
@James–it is great that you mention the community aspect. I just read this study by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University and the #1 reason for Millenials donating is wanting to make the world a better place. I wonder if this makes us more likely to give to orgs that emphasize larger community impact or that involve community giving (i.e. Twestival)?
[Reply]
[...] By Allison Jones, originally posted at Entry Level Living [...]
[...] say at all, but I could resist commenting when fellow Brazen blogger Allison Jones wrote about her thoughts on the campaign. I thought my connection to Twestival and charity:water was done, but then I got an [...]
[...] Entry-Level Living, Reflecting on Social Media Fundraising [...]
[...] • Beth Kanter, Interview with Amanda Rose: A Reflection on Twestival • Entry-Level Living, Reflecting on Social Media Fundraising • Mashable, Twestival Raises Over $250,000 • Guardian, Twestival Raises $250,000 and [...]
[...] two years ago I attended Twestival which benefited Charity:Water. And honestly, I had a mixed reaction. While it was exciting to see so many people gathered together for good cause, there was little [...]