“Social media is not a large source of direct donations [at World Vision U.S.],” Tandon says. “Social media builds brand, awareness and credibility. It is halfway between a relational tool and a mass-marketing tool. It creates one-to-one connections and dialogues, but those dialogues can go much farther, [and have] wider impact, than those one-to-one relationships.”
Cubine agrees: “The ROI would be horrible. It would require too much staff time and show too little results to be worth it.”
That said, no one has written off social networks as an entrance to the donor pipeline entirely. It’s just a matter of time. And the signs are there.
“We find that if a donor is engaged in our online community, their average gift is 50 percent higher than a donor who is only responding through direct mail,” says Roy Jones, director of development at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va.
Kenneth Grunke, director of individual and major giving at Pillars, a social-services organization with locations throughout Illinois, definitely sees the potential, explaining: “Starting the conversation about a charity or cause is usually how we see prospects become donors. To us, it’s no different than a
current donor mentioning to one of their friends, who isn’t a current donor, about the program and that individual eventually becomes interested enough to want more information.”
That interest, one would hope, eventually leads to a donation.
It takes time
Even if you aren’t trying to fundraise via social-networking sites, just having a presence there does require resources. That’s where a lot of organizations seem to go wrong — underestimating the time and effort it takes to maintain a significant, consistent presence in this world. Blogs have to be updated regularly. Message boards must be monitored for off-topic, off-color or other inappropriate remarks. Comments and messages require responses. Sounds a little like child’s play, but it’s pretty serious business.
Get Your Head Out of … the Sand
“Social media is not a large source of direct donations [at World Vision U.S.],” Tandon says. “Social media builds brand, awareness and credibility. It is halfway between a relational tool and a mass-marketing tool. It creates one-to-one connections and dialogues, but those dialogues can go much farther, [and have] wider impact, than those one-to-one relationships.”
Cubine agrees: “The ROI would be horrible. It would require too much staff time and show too little results to be worth it.”
That said, no one has written off social networks as an entrance to the donor pipeline entirely. It’s just a matter of time. And the signs are there.
“We find that if a donor is engaged in our online community, their average gift is 50 percent higher than a donor who is only responding through direct mail,” says Roy Jones, director of development at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va.
Kenneth Grunke, director of individual and major giving at Pillars, a social-services organization with locations throughout Illinois, definitely sees the potential, explaining: “Starting the conversation about a charity or cause is usually how we see prospects become donors. To us, it’s no different than a
current donor mentioning to one of their friends, who isn’t a current donor, about the program and that individual eventually becomes interested enough to want more information.”
That interest, one would hope, eventually leads to a donation.
It takes time
Even if you aren’t trying to fundraise via social-networking sites, just having a presence there does require resources. That’s where a lot of organizations seem to go wrong — underestimating the time and effort it takes to maintain a significant, consistent presence in this world. Blogs have to be updated regularly. Message boards must be monitored for off-topic, off-color or other inappropriate remarks. Comments and messages require responses. Sounds a little like child’s play, but it’s pretty serious business.