Why the Washington Post shouldn’t view Facebook as an ATM machine

The Washington Post had an article yesterday (registration may be required to read it) that made the same mistake nonprofit marketing folks often make when judging the relative value of Facebook: it simply looked at Facebook as a place you post a cause and expect the dollars to roll in. If it doesn’t do that, the Post concludes, it doesn’t work.

I’ve heard fundraisers say the same thing.

But there is more to the story.

Be sure to read the excellent comments here and more important, read Allison Fine’s response on her blog.

Bottom line: the value of Facebook is not to be calculated by dollar per donor. Allison notes:

Let’s reframe: what if Causes was judged by the number of people who know about a cause who didn’t know about it before; the number of people who increase their involvement with that cause by sharing information with friends about it, organizing an event, blogging and tweeting about it, and so on; the number of people who have self-organized an event for the cause. I’m sure there are other meausres, but you get the point, what measures we use to define success will utlimately define us and while dollars in might be easy to measure it’s not alwasy the best one to use… Causes isn’t just about raising money, it’s also about raising friends and awareness, and in the long run turning loose social ties into stronger ones for a cause may be more important than one-time donations of $10 and $20 dollars right now. Our rush to judge this application effective or ineffective over a very short time period with a primary user base of very young people is off base.

Facebook is one tool for interacting and engaging with a community—not a fundraising silver bullet.

UPDATE: Be sure to read Beth Kanter’s post on this as well.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/23 at 08:31 AM

The trackback URL for this entry is:

Comments

It’s very rash for the Post article to deem the ‘Causes’ application “inneffective” because it doesn’t spew out cash - towards the end of their article there was a little bit of backtracking as they provided examples of NGOs that were happy with what they were getting, simply because it was more than they had before they set up a ‘Causes’ page.

I’m still of the opinion that Causes is a great application in cultivating communities of like-minded individuals that support specific organizations and their ‘causes.’

Posted by Lateef on 04/23 at 10:39 AM

I was irked by the article in the WaPo. I thought the funny thing about the top fundraiser, Nature Conservancy, was that it wasn’t their goal to raise funds. Here’s the bit:

The group has four staff members devoted to representing it on social networks, but uses Causes mostly to circulate news stories and event announcements

“I definitely think it’s first and foremost a tool for brand and reputation,” said Sue Citro, the group’s digital membership director. “It definitely does more for influence than for fundraising.”

Facebook is really all about the content you provide your fans. Maybe very Kennedy-esk: ask not what they can do for you, ask what you can do for them… provide good content and you will see results.

Posted by Marc on 04/23 at 10:43 AM

Thanks, Katya. I’m wondering when everyone’s silver bullets are going to run out? Seems to me we keep firing them to no avail. How ‘buot we all load up with some cyber bullets the kind made up of lots and lots of emails, and tweets and conversations that require us to talk and listen to lots of people to solve problems together! Pollyannish? Maybe, but a lot less expensive that all that silver!

Posted by Allison Fine on 04/23 at 03:07 PM

When you play games, you really thought about the Department of your equipment well enough, your account than others, your gold enough ... There are better! What you want to have here.come on..Let’s go!

Posted by runescape money on 04/24 at 02:12 AM

I have to agree. From my experience with Facebook, it seems a better place to reach new supporters than to collect donations. With such a young audience it would be a more valuable tool to organize event or spread the word. Think of the “To Write Love On Her Arms” Facebook cause. The cause’s Facebook page took off and because they had something tangible to offer (T-shirts) they brought in money as well from people wanting to show their support. Also, it may be interesting to see how Facebookers would respond to personal representatives of an organization’s Facebook pages (Brandt Russo, for example). Here is a young, passionate guy who started Can’t Ignore the Poor and represents the non-for-profit through his personal Facebook page. Brandt replies to posts and comments daily, constantly upating his status, posting related links, and interestingly, bringing in donations. Perhaps if organizations could hire young, passionate supporters to represent their organization in the facebook world for 40 hours a week these conversations could become more valuable for the organization and the target audience.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/29 at 07:17 PM