Here is a little video to poke fun at the public's all too common misconceptions of not-for-profit arts organizations. After all, Kanye and Bieber do not ask you to make an additional donation for their performances, why on earth do not-for-profits?! Happy Monday to our arts community!
Philanthroper: A New Daily Deal Site for Non-Profit Donations
A new daily deal site launched this past month, but this site doesn’t offer a deal for a spa trip or half off dinner at some posh restaurant. New site Philanthroper offers a non-profit story a day, a daily solicitation for a non-profit doing some good, and asks visitors to give just one dollar. Launched by Mark Wilson, reporter for Gizmodo and Esquire, Philanthroper aims to make donating a daily habit for the internet culture.
The idea behind Philanthroper is very similar to dynamite daily deal sites like Groupon and Living Social. Each non-profit gets front-page realty on the site, but just for 24 hours. Instead of a daily discount, Philanthroper shares the stories of non-profits, from local to global, and gives visitors the opportunity to donate a dollar. When the 24 hours come to an end, a new non-profit goes up and the previous day’s organization receives their funds within about a week.
Why just a dollar? As the site states:
So you can donate another $1 tomorrow. And another the next day. Use Philanthroper daily, and we guarantee, you'll donate more over time than you would have otherwise plus it won't sting your bank account so badly. Use Philanthroper every day and you'll be on the right track to give more, more easily. If you're compelled to make a larger donation, fantastic. We always link their site. So go for it.
Philanthroper restricts the amount you can donate to just that one dollar and limits visitors from donating more than once a day. The idea here isn’t to solicit a major gift, but to create a culture of daily giving. Donating a single dollar can be a pretty tempting request. Personally, I spend more on a cup of coffee or downloading an app that will make my phone sound like an air raid siren.
The financial cut Philanthroper takes from each donation is the biggest thing setting them apart from other crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter and USA Projects. That’s because the amount Philanthroper retains is zero – you read that right, zero. Philanthroper states right out that they will never take a cut of your donation, although the site’s payment service mPayy will take a whopping 1% of each donation – a penny.
This is how Philanthroper can offer that minimum donation level of $1, whereas other non-profits are often forced to ask for a minimum of around $10 due to the processing rates of current payment services. Support for the site comes from advertising, so as website Arstechnica puts it “…only your eyeballs, and not your charitable gifts, are paying to keep things going.”
How does a non-profit get a daily deal? The site selects only official 501(c)3 organizations, with a special interest in those that bring in less than $1 million per year. The main focus is on those non-profits that are young and growing and could use every single extra dollar. Religious non-profits are not promoted on the site and individuals raising funds will not make the cut. Think you know a non-profit that’s perfect for the site? Philanthroper invites site visitors to suggest tips for non-profits out there worthy of their own daily deal.
Creating a habit of daily giving in our current internet culture is a pretty exciting idea. Philanthroper is taking advantage of the impulsive nature of users of sites like Groupon and Living Social. If the popularity of the site can continue to grow, there is a possibility to make a huge difference for many small non-profits. Visit the main site here and check out what today’s daily cause is that you can throw a dollar towards.
Charitable Donations and the iPhone: What the App, Man?
As the year draws to a close and there is the last, big push for donations by non-profits, who wouldn’t love a one-click, donation button in their app on the iPhone? Well, Apple apparently. There has been some buzz lately over Apple’s policy towards charitable giving on the iPhone.
- Photo from PC World
Apple’s policy is that charitable donations cannot take place within an app or through Apple’s app store. If users wish to make a donation, they have to be directed out of the app, through their web browser and may have to contribute additional information. While this may not seem like a huge deal, it does kind of ruin that wonderful impulse that a nice, big red “DONATE NOW” button would have.
So why hate on the big, red button? The answer from Apple has been that they do not want to be responsible for the charitable funds reaching their final destination. But as Jake Shapiro pointed out in a blog post on ars technica:
The excuse that “Apple doesn't want to be held responsible for ensuring that the charitable funds make it to the final destination” is a cop-out. Google Grants has tackled this already, and organizations like TechSoup and Guidestar do a sophisticated job of authenticating nonprofits and charities worldwide.
The real reason may be that charitable donations are just of no interest to Apple. Apple receives 30 cents for every dollar spent in their app store and with a charitable donation, would only be able to claim a processing fee.
While companies like Google and Microsoft have been quick to point out that these problems do not exist with their mobile software, I don’t think this is about finding the one mobile software that perfectly serves the non-profit community. This current stink with Apple more clearly shows the importance of not putting all your eggs in one basket when it comes to developing an organization’s mobile strategy. If you want to voice your displeasure with Apple's policy, an online petition has been started over at care2 and it will be very interesting to see if and how Apple responds.
USA Projects: A New Crowdfunding Platform for the Arts
Created in 2005 as a grant-making and arts advocacy group based, United States Artists (USA) acts as an avenue for individual artists to find private funding for themselves and their projects. Earlier this month, they entered into the foray of crowdfunding platforms with the launch of the USA Projects, a fund-raising engine that is specifically focused on funding individual artists and their projects through grassroots micro-donations.
Part social network, part fund-raising vehicle, the USA Projects site combines many aspects of other popular crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter, RocketHub, and IndieGoGo. While still in beta testing, the site has already garnered some major attention according to The New York Times:
In testing, the Web site attracted roughly 36,000 unique visitors and raised a total of $210,000, with an average of $120 from each of 1,500 small donors, Ms. DeShaw said.
Not bad at all for a recently launched crowdfunding platform for the arts. Still, there are some major differences between USA projects and the other crowdfunding sites out there. Here’s a look at some of the similarities and differences between USA Projects and its peers:
Similarities
- It’s all or nothing, baby – Like Kickstarter and Rockethub, USA Projects adheres to the “all or nothing policy” wherein projects must meet 100% of their stated fundraising goal, or the funds are returned to their respected donors. Some people have seen this as a great motivator for their projects, while others claim it is a waste of time. This isn’t true of every platform though, IndieGoGo allows people to keep all funds contributed to their projects, even if the final fund-raising goal has not been met.
- The final countdown – As is common on crowdfunding sites, artists on USA Projects have three months in which to raise the money for their projects.
- Getting friendly – Most of the platforms out there have a social media element to them, and the USA Projects site is no exception. Users on the site can create profiles, follow artists and funders, send messages, leave comments, and view recent activity on the projects they have funded or have an interest in. This creates a more personalized experience as well as a stronger connection to the projects and the artists.
- Incentivizin’ – Crowdfunding sites mirror traditional donor campaigns in that different donation levels come with various perks and rewards. Since the perks and rewards are determined by the artists, the endless possibilities are limited only by the artists’ capacity to deliver. Rewards might range from a personal note from the artist to prints or video downloads of the resulting artwork, from private studio visits to the chance to sing back-up on the artist’s CD, etc.
Differences
- At what cost? - In order to meet the bottom line, sites like Kickstarter and RocketHub will charge a percentage of the final funds and for the credit card processing fees. These fees can amount from 5-8% of a project’s total funds raised. Since United States Artists is a not-for-profit organization, there is no fee attached to the projects.
[Correction: According to an FAQ on the USA Projects Web site: "81% of every dollar pledged goes directly to the artist’s project, and 19% supports USA’s programs for artists and the site’s administration." So with this information, it appears that the percentage of funds received by US Artists is two or three times the percentage received by other crowdfunding sites. -- Hat tip to Justin Kazmark.]
- Who gets to play in the sandbox? – Now we hit the major difference between USA crowdfunding and the other platforms out there: not just any artist can add a project to the site. In order to appear on USA Projects, the artist in charge must have received a previous grant or award from a USA Project Partner or recognized organization. Visit the main website here to view all of the recognized organizations and their award/grant programs.
This requirement for artists to have been granted a USA grant, or equivalent from a partner organization, in the past in order to pilot a project raises some interesting questions about this model of crowdfunding:
- Is the policy too exclusive? Requiring grants or awards in order to even start a project excludes a large number of artists right off the bat. And while there are a considerable number of organizations partnering with USA, they do not cover the full spectrum of creative professionals in the United States.
- Does the grant/award requirement go against the spirit of crowdfunding? One of the exciting aspects of crowdfunding is that virtually anyone can start a project and find the funders to make it happen. So what happens to all the first timers? The energetic artists with a great idea and the will to make it happen, but lacking the professional background to make it onto the site? It can be argued that much of the success individuals have had on sites like Kickstarter can be attributed to the strength of the idea behind the project, not necessarily their past accomplishments.
- Will having “approved” artists act as an incentive for people to donate larger amounts? There is definitely a reassurance when donating to an artist who has had some previous success and support. But most existing crowdfunding platforms already have the reassurance of returned funds and set time limits, so how big of an impact will having pre-approved artists make? Will USA’s stamp of approval result in more donations or larger donations for these artists?
It will definitely be interesting to see how the USA Projects platform grows over time and if the requirements for projects will stay the same or evolve with that growth. Additionally, how might this model for crowdfunding the arts affect other existing platforms?
Building “Real World” Relationships Online: Alan Cooke of Convio
- Alan Cooke of Convio
Alan Cooke knows arts donors. This opera-lover also happens to be a master marketer (formerly with Hewlett Packard) and he puts his passion and his skills to good use at fundraising software company Convio, specializing in systems for non-profit organizations across the spectrum.
Convio’s most visible campaign is likely the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure team fundraising efforts. (They have also done a fantastic job with Pittsburgh’s own Carnegie Museum.) However, Convio provides a range of different tools—at the core is Convio online marketing, which is a collection of tools—email marketing, website design, platforms for peer-to-peer fundraising, etc.
I recently interviewed Alan after seeing his presentation on online fundraising at the Opera America Conference in June.
Arts organizations, more often than other non-profits, have two messages that they’re getting out there. They’re asking people to buy tickets and on the other hand, they’re asking for a donations. How do you find that different from your other non-profit clients when you’re working with performing arts organizations?
The ticket-selling organizations are a little bit different from the majority of our organizations which only have contributed income. I think that, in terms of opera companies, many people really don’t understand the economic model of an opera company very well. I certainly did not understand that when I was an occasional single ticket buyer for the opera.
Perhaps one of the things that needs to happen is that organizations need to do a much better job, first of all, of making the case that simply selling tickets is not going to cover the cost of the productions. A lot of that is just education. You can make that case pretty well on your website and also through your communications with people, but you do need to make that case. Secondly, there’s the question of where you want to start. In the case of ticket-selling organizations, it’s logical to optimize your website for ticket purchases. There are things that you can do after someone has actually purchased a ticket where you can start to move them down a path and start to make your case--really simple things, like when they buy a ticket give them the option of making a small donation or trying to get people on a monthly plan where they’re giving a relatively small contributions every month. It’s automatic, you don’t have to worry about it and typically the lifetime value of those donors is very, very high.
One of the things that I have seen with digital communications in arts organizations is that you have the marketing department… And then you have the development department. Sometimes they play together very well, but sometimes, you’ll see accounts that are very obviously controlled by one or the other, and not a lot of overall relationship building. Your thoughts?
This problem of silos is a very common problem throughout the whole non-profit world. I think we have marketing departments that have their own agenda and their own tools and then you have a development department that has their own separate tools and they don’t talk about it to each other very much, which causes all kinds of confusion. Breaking down those organizational silos is easier said than done. Often smaller organizations have an easier time because they have fewer people, but as organizations get large, those walls sometimes can become very, very strong. It’s true that there is a lot of marketing chatter, which often doesn’t have very much to do with relationships. I think we’re starting to figure out how to build relationships the way that the development people have always done—you can do those same things online.
A lot of organizations are getting people’s email addresses after they’ve attended one performance and then they get an email asking for, for example, a $150 donation. Marc Van Bree has made the point that that’s like asking someone to marry you after the first date.
That’s right. It’s all about relationships. The online world is not dramatically different from the real world. You need to ask permission and you need to build a relationship with somebody before you start hitting them up for money. That’s a simple thing to do but there’s a surprising number of people who don’t do that.
Then how do you build that relationship and making the case for support to new pools of donors? In your Opera America session, you mentioned the concept of a welcome series.
So, the idea of a welcome series is that when somebody takes that step of raising their hand and saying, “I am interested in what it is that you have to offer” by giving you their email address, at that point you can’t just ignore them. You can’t just take it for granted and then immediately start asking them for money. Just like you would in a normal face-to-face relationship, you need to welcome that person to your community and you do that by seeking out some spaced email communications thanking the people for getting to know your organization and giving them some background information. Gradually, as you move down what we refer to as the relationship pathway, you give them more and more ways to become involved and to get more deeply embedded in the culture of the organization.
One of the very good things about using a technology platform is that you can automate all that, so you don’t have to write these things every time. It can be completely built out beforehand and automated. And we have found that by doing that, by making sure that as soon as someone joins your list, they get put into that communication stream. Not only are the open rates higher, but the conversion rates are much higher. And once they actually convert and donate, becoming a financial supporter of the organization, you can take them out of that stream and put them in a different stream. All of that can be automated and set up quite easily.
One of the ways that you mentioned non-profit arts organizations could combat the current economic climate is to reposition themselves as a community resource. How can an organization do that via digital means?
This came out of a conversation that I had with the general manager of my local opera company in Austin and I think that what they had said was fascinating. The difficulty that they encounter, especially in a medium-sized market like Austin, Texas, is that it’s not easy to sell opera. There is a relatively small audience for opera in that kind of a city and particularly in times of recession, it’s difficult to make the case. So this was an enormous struggle for the opera company in Austin, as I feel it is for many opera companies.
What they decided to do, which I thought was very clever of them, was they built an excellent music school on the premises right next to the concert hall and they started to garner quite a bit of attention in the city because of the quality of the music education that they offered to children. They had promoted that pretty heavily on their website and they have started to build a whole new pool of supporters for the opera who are people who would have never been on their list before—parents of children who now go to the school at the opera. It’s a completely new donor pool for them and it’s a donor pool that is amenable to different techniques, so they have started to do a fair amount of online fundraising to that audience, and that’s been pretty effective. They are obviously younger people and people who are not perhaps as familiar with the opera as the traditional audience. It’s basically given them a new pool of donors.
I heard that you recently added a database component to your collection of online tools. Tell me about that.
The database component an interesting new development for us. There are obviously a lot of vendors out there that sell databases to non-profit clients, but it became apparent to us that a lot of clients didn’t only want a set of on-line tools. They wanted a set of online tools, but they also wanted an entire CRM [Customer Relationship Management] system, where everything worked together. I think we have done a pretty good job in the past of integrating with programs like Raiser’s Edge. Data flows back into the master database and flows the other way. But it became apparent that a lot of those database tools were expensive and were relatively complex and that there was an opportunity for us to build a more integrated system together, and that was really the approach that we took.
What we decided to do rather than actually building something from scratch ourselves is we partnered with Sales Force. Sales Force has what they refer to as a non-profit template, which is a kind of a database for non-profits based on their commercial product. We built on top of that core piece and we built a product which is called Common Ground™. It’s a database specifically for non-profits, which talks to our online pieces.
So, if I were a development director, sending out emails and getting fine return on investment, but I really want to take my fundraising to the next level, what’s the first thing I should look into from Convio?
Rather than even looking for a tool, Convio is known for extremely interesting and high-quality research. For someone who is just thinking about how to get to the next level, I think they are thought-provoking. Obviously, they are not going to get you there automatically, but there very interesting. For a technology company, we do a lot more research than many technology companies and I think that’s one of our great assets. It depends on who you are; if you are a small organization, I would hope that you are really at the point where you are strongly thinking about bringing in technology to help you get to the next level, I would hope you’d look at product tours, which are short. They are a pretty good way to see what’s possible.
Social Media, Funding & Prom Queens
American Express recently started a grant program funding arts organizations through online voting instead of traditional non-profit success metrics. Quality of art, financial stability, and community impact were not the deciding factor in who received a $200,000 grant this summer, votes were. In a scene reminiscent of American Idol or Dancing With the Stars, arts organizations compete for the grand prize. Twitter, Facebook, and E-mail, took center stage as organizations launched their online campaigns. A competition was born and America voted to determine the winner.
American Express’s use of the high school prom queen method to choose a winner evokes many new questions for funders and fundraisers alike:
- Does the idea of a contest remove art from arts funding?
- Is the best organization being rewarded?
- Is this a popularity contest or a social media war?
- How do you send a message for support without degrading the integrity of your opponents?
- How will social media be affected through this type of funding?
Galloping ahead of many traditional forms of communication, technology and social media have taken the arts community by storm over the last few years. This contest adds yet another facet to their use: fundraising. With the voting apparatus hosted online, social media makes perfect sense as the advertising weapon of choice, but is this a good choice for the arts?
Building communities, starting conversations, and sharing information top the list of ‘the best ways to use Social media.’ Advertising and sales lead the least effective uses. In an attempt to gain votes, organizations risk alienating their supporters through using inflammatory messaging or hyper focusing on their votes and forgetting the online communities they created.
Bashing the competition, touting superiority, or focusing on why one organization ‘needs the money more’ represent strategies and messaging that could easily be adopted. These messages are uncomfortable for many people and can fracture the arts community. However, without competitive messaging the prize would simply go to the organization with the highest online presence, essentially starting the contest on an unfair playing field.
Assuming an organization crafted an effective campaign without causing any damage, the biggest question still remains unanswered. Should grants be determined by popular vote?
On one hand supply and demand compose the framework of the funding structure. The organization with the highest public demand receives a reward to create more art. On the other hand, many see this as a popularity contest with the biggest flashiest organizations gaining a clear advantage. Unfortunately, art comprises no part of either approach. This funding model is not based on the organization, what they do, who they do it for, or why they do it: a counterintuitive approach in my opinion.
While increased online support and a focus on technology use to reach constituents could provide benefits in this funding model, the prom queens method of distributing support should probably be left where it belongs: high school. This model has no way of insuring the best organizations reap the rewards or that the most efficient and effective programs receive funding. Popularity does not always equal quality, but it will always decide the winner in this funding model.
Audience 2.0, Part II: Thoughts for the Future
Check out Part I for an overview of the NEA’s recent report Audience 2.0: How Technology Influences Arts Participation While Audience 2.0 gives some useful statistics on technology and media participation in the arts, the report does not provide the answers or the data that I am looking for regarding arts participation and technology.
- How does arts participation through one technology affect participation in other technologies? For example, how does participating through television affect web participation?
- What impact has social media had on arts participation?
- How do people participate in the arts digitally and online? What are they doing on the web when they are participating?
- Has participation in the arts via technology affected online giving to arts organizations?
Audience 2.0 draws into question the timeliness of national arts research, the vehicle being used to conduct this research, and the understanding of where arts audiences are heading in the future. This report was a useful audience analysis for 2008, but the survey upon which Audience 2.0 bases its analysis lacked a sense of forward motion as well as the ability to predict future arts participation through rapidly changing technologies.
The data used in Audience 2.0 was gathered three years ago before many current technologies were available and before many new technology users had invaded the digital market. In his blog post Back To The Future, on Danceusa.org, Marc Kirshner states that:
Since the beginning of the 2007 survey period [for the 2008 report]:
- Four generations of iPhones have been released [and the Android network has been launched]
- Facebook’s user base has grown from 20 million to 400 million users
- The entire book publishing industry has been turned upside down by e-readers, such as the Kindle, Nook and iPad
- Millions of set-top boxes, Blu-ray DVD and home theater PCs have connected televisions to broadband Internet
- Hulu launched its online video service to the public
- More than 300,000 people viewed simulcasts and encores of the Metropolitan Opera’s Carmen
- The first 3-D network began broadcasting
The three year time gap between data collection and report publication created a lack of focus on many forms of new media and social networking platforms currently leading many technology discussions in the nonprofit arts industry today. Correspondingly, the relevance of the report in our current environment is brought into question, and we must remember that the report represents a snapshot in time more than a study of current habits. Due to the speed with which technology advances and its usage changes, traditional forms of data collection and publication no longer appear as useful for tracking these trends.
The survey asks about participation in the arts through technology, but Audience 2.0 does not provide answers about specific actions and their effects. The survey does not ask participants if electronic and digital media makes them more or less likely to attend a live event, but the report draws based upon a perceived correlation in the participation data. Without causality data, this correlation leaves us with a “chicken or the egg” dilemma. Does electronic/digital/online participation in the arts lead to an increase in live participation, or are participants in live arts events simply more likely to participate in electronic/digital/online arts events?
I would like to see more direct questions being asked of people who responded that they participated in the arts through electronic and digital media. Obtaining this next level of understanding will provide us with a deeper understanding of the effects of electronic and digital media on arts participation.
Audience 2.0 raises more questions than it provides answers, but it does show a commitment on the federal level to assess the impact of technology on the arts. I am hopeful that future reports will delve deeper into the seemingly symbiotic relationship between technology and arts participation by focusing more specifically on the digital/online arts participant.
Micro-donations: Proving Size Doesn’t Always Matter
The Obama campaign, the Nelson Mandela Foundation, and The American Red Cross have all embraced electronic micro-donation campaigns as an effective tool in gathering financial and community support for their causes. The prominence of these cases and their rampant success provides the evidence necessary for arts organizations to begin adopting this new technology to enhance their current giving campaigns. These organizations altered the traditional view of contributed income by looking at three hundred $10 donations as equal to and in many ways greater than one $3,000 donation. This logic has very little to do with the amount of money being given and much more to do with the amount of people giving it. Micro-donation campaigns are about involving as many people as possible and using their collective support to raise awareness as well as funds. They are not just about filling the coffers. They are about educating donors, building support, and cultivating future participation and giving.
A micro donation can be defined as a small gift usually given through electronic media and most often associated with the support of a cause, project, or individual. Point-and-click web based interfaces, e-mail, and SMS txt messaging are the most popular and effective platforms.
Reasons to start a micro-donation giving campaign:
- Small time commitment from management
- Little implementation cost leading to a large return on investment
- Widening donor market segments
- Generating new donors and interest
- Creating ‘buzz’ and word-of-mouth support
- Ease of social media integration
- Building momentum, education, and visibility of the organization
Having acknowledged these benefits, micro-donation campaigns have not been proven effective for annual giving platforms, large gifts or operating funds. They have been proven effective in supporting specific projects, programs, campaigns, and Individuals.
A recent article written by Rich Mintz, the man behind both the Obama Campaign and the Haiti relief effort by the American Red Cross provided 5 big tips to help organizations set up a successful micro-donation campaigns and/or internet giving program.
- Make it easy to give money and sign up online
- Reward people who have just signed up with useful follow up contact and content
- Communicate how much donations matter (even the very small ones)
- Create online participation opportunities
- Give people a sense of what’s going on backstage – and in your back offices.
To elaborate:
- Micro donations should be the easiest way a person can give money to an organization. It should take less than three clicks on a website or the simple task of responding to an SMS txt message or e-mail.
- Donors want to know more about an organization once the feel they have invested in it. Send an initial personalized e-mail or SMS text message to donors within 24 hours elaborating on what they are supporting and how they helped.
- Every donor even one who only gives $5 should feel like they have made a difference and created impact. By framing their support this way, the organization is setting itself up for future involvement and donations.
- Creating an online community and an interactive online space provides an outlet for people to be involved with the organization outside of the physical space.
- A behind the scenes look at an organization shows transparency and provides a sense of community. It puts faces, personalities and people with the names, this is important when building support,
Technology has provided a new and proven opportunity for cultivating contributed income in the current economy. If adopted, these campaigns will soon be key in cultivating new donors, creating new support and sheering up funding for new and innovative projects in the cultural community.
Rethinking ROI for Social Media
For many arts organizations out there right now, this is how we seem to be calculating the ROI for Social Networking and Media. Everyone seems to be groping in the dark to boil down a simple monetary answer to this question of, "What is *your organization here*'s return on investing in Social Media?"
While there are solid(ish) ROI calculators for Social Networking out there, and they do provide cells for number of friends added, and amount of donors added to your email lists vs. amount of volunteer/employee time and money spent, I feel like somehow they all miss the point.
Yes it is nice to have quantifiable data to back up the decision to dedicate precious and dwindling time and money to a project. However, the main source of return from social media simply isn't quantifiable. We're talking about trying to quantify human interaction and communication. And we are also talking about laying the groundwork to adapt to how the world is changing, and how our audiences are staying informed/using the internet. The worth of these tools, and the time spent cultivating relationships with our audiences does not exactly have a set monetary value.
We can begin by monitoring click through rates, and number of new "friends" on Facebook and weighing this against how much time and money is being spent, but this doesn't exactly give a complete picture of what is going on.
If an organization is really committed to utilizing social networking not just for marketing and revenue generation, but for communicating and engaging their target audience and creating a community of individuals that are interested in the core values and beliefs of that organization then how on earth can they boil that down to a Return On Investment.
As of right now, the amount of direct donations that non profits are receiving from their social network sites is arguably marginal. Admittedly there are some outliers who are able to generate significant returns from their social networks, the Brooklyn Museum's 1stfans springs to mind. However, as a communication tool for promotion and engagement, a method of gathering email-ing lists, and for managing and maintaining positive feedback about the organization, social networks are proving to be invaluable pretty much across the board.
The overwhelming problem of course is that once your organization has developed this online social network, simply having a static page isn't enough. A Facebook page is less a Billboard than it is a Soapbox, so you have to treat it like one. It might be ok for your organization to have an unpaid intern managing some of your social media because they are by and large in the Heavy User demographic and know all the ins and outs, but without some sort of direct executive insight and direction you now have a 20-something basically dictating the brand identity of your organization and running a large part of your marketing department.
So I guess that's another way of looking at the ROI, what would happen with no investment of time and resources? The whole "If not X" senario. As the world slowly begins to adopt social networking as a standard means of communication and the source for their daily information, we may see an increase to the direct donations to organizations through these social networks. I mean, if politicians (read old rich people) are already doing it, then how far behind the curve are we if we aren't?
Surviving the Economic Meltdown as a Nonprofit
Several posts from around the arts blogging community have addressed the issue of fundraising in financially tough times. ("Tough" is an understatement, I know.) TechSoup recently posted an entry that pulls together some of the posts, and I thought it was important to share the link here. Obviously, there are no silver bullets, but it's helpful to see an overview of other organizations' strategies for fundraising when wallets are light. If nothing else, it's good to know that all nonprofits are sharing in this struggle.
So what technology tools are important for surviving the economic downturn (aka: recession, depression, slowdown, bump in the financial road)?
Social Media - Facebook, MySpace, Flickr and other online social resources are still the best way to use the Web to create community and investment in your organization. And if someone is truly invested in you, they will continue to support you regardless of their financial situation. Activate your network and get others to spread the news about how great you are.
Donation Buttons, Links and Widgets - (Please note: This post is not intended to endorse Barack Obama. Rather, this is an endorsement of his fantastic digital asset team. I feel there are valuable lessons to be learned by the nonprofit world from Obama's online campaign strategies.) Barack Obama's digital campaign efforts have been astounding. Even if he doesn't win the upcoming election, his campaign's online fundraising success has been extraordinary. One thing that has led to this success is the sheer number of times the campaign asks for money. In every message I receive from them, be it via Web, email or mobile device, there is a donation link or button. And because of the way their communications have been tailored and carefully crafted, I don't think of them as spam. In my opinion, if someone has opted into your lists, they're telling you they're interested in your work. As any fundraising pro will tell you, the secret to success is not being afraid to ask for money over and over and over again. Also, the Obama team hasn't asked me to give large gifts. Typically they're asking for $25-50. It's much easier and more likely for me to give $25 a few times a year than it is for me to give $250 in one lump sum. This may sound odd, but why not nickel and dime your supporters?
Online Fundraising Events - Rather than dishing out tons of money for artist travel, catering and rental fees when you want to offer fundraising events, why not try to host a few fee-based online opportunities? For instance, an arts organization could team up with a local band to offer an online concert followed by a chat session. You could require a donation in order for a user to access the concert and followup chat. Obviously, there is no virtual replacement for a live gala, but you may be overlooking some valuable opportunities for providing donors additional online content.
An important thing to remember is that in times of financial distress, it is more important than ever to make sure you have a clear and measurable communication strategy. For more information on establishing clear and effective communication goals, check out the Spitfire Strategies Smart Chart 3.0. This doesn't focus exclusively on digital communications, but it can be easily tailored for any type of message.