Peer Giving Ideas

We get asked a lot about the specifics of return on investment from social media. Companies are hungry for any data they can find to prove or disprove the effectiveness of investing time and money into Facebook, Twitter and the like. While developing resources for social media and hiring people to run it is clearly an investment, it should be clear that it's not a transaction-based one. You can't measure the success of social media in dollars alone.

To put it plainly, as Andrea Vahl of Useful Social Media does, "Social media is a communications tool that should support your business goals." It's not about investing for a direct return, it's about investing in a new and potentially more efficient way of communicating with your audience and donor base. She goes on to explain her article "Understanding the ROI of Social Media" that while yes, social media will increase revenue over the long term, it will can also save you money in the short term through direct, hands-on communication with your network. Social media is simply quicker than picking up the phone, sending out mail, or meeting supporters one-on-one. That's not to say it has completely replaced the traditional forms of communication, but it's more efficient and already has a broader audience (at least for those age 20 to 50) than traditional communication, in the long term it will replace many of the traditional forms.

In short, social media is more about meeting people where they're at than return on investment, but over time it will both save and make you money, if used properly.

It's a question posed in a recent article in the Globe & Mail. The answer: well, maybe. Facebook, like any online tool, has the potential for great success. But as the G&M points out, it often takes a devoted supporter, what we like to call a "champion," in order to make it work. And those champions can often be hard to come by, "[Devoted] fundraisers... are still a drop in the bucket. According to an industry survey of 980 charities, roughly half raised nothing on social networks in 2011. Those that did mostly raised less than $10,000. Only 4 per cent raised more than $100,000."

Those small numbers are more of an indication of the charity sector's slow move to social media than the lack of its effectiveness. The key going forward will be to move not only charitable organizations online themselves, but moving charity workers and their supporters online as well, giving them tools to network and fundraise to their true potential.

The great thing about social media, and specifically peer-to-peer fundraising, is that it brings giving back into the context of community. Tired of being solicited by strangers, donors are more willing to give to friends and local organizations. Facebook allows donors to be aware of what their peers are up to, and has the potential to connect them with local charities.

Keep in mind that Facebook isn't only a tool for fundraising, it can also be a great way to have your story heard. People have an appetite for human stories, and charities need to make sure their own story is concise and affecting, then use Facebook and Twitter to share their story.

For more tips on storytelling and how to use social media to it's full potential, check out:

Telling Your Story and Social Media: Extend Your Reach

In the video above, Justin McElroy explains the expectations people bring to media, and how the priority for information providers (be it news organizations or businesses) has shifted. McElroy is the Coordinating Editor for the Ubyssey, University of British Columbia's campus newspaper.

We consume information via media in a multiplicity of forms every day, from our morning newspaper to social media to word of mouth. In the past it has been the role of the provider to curate: to inform and critique our culture and consumption, while engaging their audience was automatic.

Now that the internet has leveled the playing field, there is a much higher competition for our attention, and engagement becomes the highest priority. Because of this, McElroy implores us to define our audience, refine our content, and constantly engage. Know who your message is intended for, craft your site and newsletters to your supporters, and meet them where they're at.

While this may be considered a topic of minutia, the effectiveness of asking users to opt-in vs. opt-out can be incredibly varied.

For starters, here's a rundown of each:

Opt-out: The checkbox for your newsletter has the default set as checked-- "Yes, sign me up!" As MailChimp says, "We highly recommend against it, because you'll end up with tons of people who don't understand how they got on your list, who won't read your emails, and who will send complaints to the anti-spam authorities to get your server blacklisted."

Opt-in: The checkbox for you newsletter is set as un-checked, so the user will have to make a conscious decision to opt-in.

The opt-in method is generally agreed upon to be a best practice. Why? Because 74% of people consider "e-mail I did not sign-up to receive" as spam. In other words, unless they make a conscious to decision to opt-in, they don't want to read your newsletter.

So stick with the smaller numbers: those truly interested.

Sources: MailChimp Blog and Jeanne Jennings on Clickz.com.

We're intrigued by the new campaign on Love Global: win a trip to visit a Missionary across the globe. Watch the video above and we'll keep you posted on the details as they unfold.