From the Chronicle of Philanthropy blog http://philanthropy.com/giveandtake/index.php?id=1079
"Nonprofit Groups Outpace Businesses in Adopting Social-Networking Tools. "
Although it pains me to respond to a post on the Chronicle's soporific blog, i do think this time they've posted about an interesting topic. Plus the data they are referenceing was collected right here in massachusetts so props to University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Center for Marketing Research.
It looks like nonprofits are adopting Facebook and Twitter more than for-profit companies.
That's good news and bad news. The good news is that these social medium are a more effective way to communicate than bulk mail. They are opt-in, viral, and free. Hopefully the days of licking stamps and envelopes, wasting paper and annoying postcards will be over soon.
The bad news: Corporations are obligated to their shareholders to maximize their ROI. Legally obligated. If they are not using social media, one has to wonder about the value. I'm talking mostly from a revenue perspective. Look at a couple of Causes on Facebook. Think Autism has over a million members and has generated $30K or so. Autism Speaks has 100,000 memebrs that have generated about $5k.
That''s pretty awful actually. Comapre this with people who use the SWEET online fundraisng platform. A typical registrant will raise $250 on average. If Facebook Causes worked this effectively for fundraising, Think Autism would have generated $250 million.
Social media tools have proved ineffective for fundraising so far. So they are not really that effective for revenue generation just yet. Which is why for profits don't use them a much. Nonprofits need to ask themselves is their effort in building a massive facebook group worth it? Will it lead to anything. I think the jury is still out on that.
Comments