This week there have been some great discussions about online fundraising contests with lots of interesting perspectives:

• Beth Kanter (@kanter) and Allison Fine (@afine) are reviewing the social media strategies of winners in the America Giving Challenge over at the Case Foundation.
• George Weiner (@georgecaweiner) of DoSomething.org (@dosomething) recently wrote about the challenges in engaging followers without spamming them.
• Jessica Gottlieb (@JessicaGottlieb) discussed why Pepsi’s Refresh Campaign comes across as branding causes instead of tackling how the corporation may contribute to society’s problems.
• Jaison Morgan argues over on Change.org (@change) that these competitions aren’t fads and are revolutionizing how we see philanthropy.

I still have mixed feelings on online fundraising contests and a few questions to explore their impact:

1. How much social media involvement is required before participating in the competition? Sometimes these competitions are discussed as a way to get nonprofits more engaged in social media. However, based on a recent case study of Darius Goes West, winner of the America Giving Challenge, that doesn’t seem to be the case—instead active social media involvement is necessary before starting a competition. This makes sense; these kinds of competitions emphasize a short term goal when I think to get the most out of social media there needs to be a long term strategy, with the competition being one of many ways for fans/followers to get involved.

2. Do these contests offer fairer models of funding? The biggest charge against foundations is that their grant processes are archaic. In addition to asking for a great deal of information, the majority of foundations give less than $15,000, very little of which goes to general operating funds which many nonprofits need. However with these contests, the ease getting involved, getting feedback, the potential of attracting new supporters, and more control over how funds are spent are benefits that can’t be ignored. Additionally, people seem much more comfortable calling a company out for not being transparent or fair than doing the same with a foundation.

3. Are these competitions as inclusive as they claim to be? While social media is “free” in terms of signing up, I wonder if it also allows people to overlook organizations doing great work, but who don’t have the time or resources to get tons of votes. For example, if you are doing great work in rural part of your country, how do these competitions benefit you? And if these competitions are laying new ground for a more market based, open form of funding, how do we address the digital divide and ensure that organizations don’t get left behind?

4. Do competitions encourage a narrow approach to social change? One thing that stands out to me in these competitions is that they come eerily close to being popularity contests, focusing on what sounds/looks good as opposed to addressing impact and encouraging nonprofits to tackle larger issues.  Additionally, an issue Jessica Gottlieb brought up in her post is that while Pepsi may give money for a weight room at an inner city school, they contribute to the issue of obesity simply by the product they sell and how they sell it.  Are nonprofits less inclined or more inclined to look at corporations as both solutions and causes of the issues they are trying to address?

What are your thoughts on online fundraising contests for nonprofits?