I was all geared up to write a response to the Washington Post critique on the Facebook ”Causes” application, but others with better ideas than mine beat me to the post. The Post article suggests that the application, which allows supporters/champions of nonprofits to share their enthusiasm and encourage contributions, is ineffective as compared to other fundraising strategies, and therefore flawed.
As other bloggers have noted, ”ineffective” contains a bundle of assumptions worthy of deconstruction. And the expectations/assumptions about social network sites as fundraising tools is chief among those assumptions.
Beth Kanter (thanks to @lisa_hoang) offers links and summaries to many responses, chief among them Allison Fine, who deconstructs some of the lessons we’re learning through the Causes application beyond ”effective” or ”ineffective.”
- Causes enables a lot of people to “support a cause.” In old thinking that meant only one thing: give us money. But in connected thinking, it means that each one of us is can be more than an ATM for our causes. Causes on FB enables us to tell our own world — distinct from the world — about the issues, campaigns, orgs that they are passionate about.
- Episodically, Causes has demonstrated the amazing power of distributed fundraising for causes. [Me talking here: this is consistent with the power-law patterns we see elsewhere on the web, where the top winners win really big, and the not-so-top trail off into oblivion…but given the low cost, even folks in the ”long tail” can win.]
- Using dollars raised as a critical measure of success has allowed others to hammer Causes without much cause. [Me again: Selecting the right metric is the large part of the battle in any medium…dollars raised is an important but meaningless metric unless measured against others described below.]
- If Causes was judged on awareness only it would get an A+ — there are very few mechanisms that enable communities of people to learn so much about causes so inexpensively.
So, is Facebook a gravy train for vague requests for cash? No. Nothing is. [Is a telephone a useful tool for shoveling dirt? Is it supposed to be?] But it’s an extraordinary resource to enable your friends and supporters to spread their enthusiasm. And that can’t be bad.
You make some very good points. I have to agree that using Facebook as a marketing tool is a very smart decision for any organization. Like you said, it is a very good way to spread the word about your organization, but it is also a very useful tool to keep your current followers up to date. By posting events and keeping the profile up to date regularly, you are opening the door for a lot of people who are interested, but may not have the time to spend making sure they keep up to date with your organization.
Facebook is not meant to be a gateway for donations, it is meant to spread the word, and it does this very well. Some donations might trickle in from Facebook, but not many are going to, and as long as the organization that is using Facebook is aware of this, I can’t see anyone being disappointed with the exposure that Facebook gives them.
You’re right, Andrew. I started a small cause on Facebook (“national summit for the arts”) and though I haven’t pushed it at all, it’s gained a few followers. But the point is to raise awareness and spread ideas, not raise money. I was even puzzled that “Causes” required me to designate a nonprofit to receive donations.
So it’s at least in part a question of intent.
What’s even more interesting is the new concept that’s floating around: will Facebook replace Google as the primary gateway to the Net. Then how will we use Facebook? What will we gain? What will we lose? etc.
Hi Andrew:
Great summary! There’s been some great follow up discussions and ideas too.
http://bit.ly/bjRVM
But by conflating the notion of “supporting a cause” through Facebook with “supporting a cause” by you know, making an actual donation of cash, it allows people to feel like they are doing something that has value without really contributing anything of value.
Unless our banks and creditors allow us to begin depositing awareness, it’s at least as important, if not more important, to do things that generate ticket sales and contributions, isn’t it — to your organization’s immediate survival.
I’d grab the long-tail on this if there were some easy way for my friends, and the friends of my friends, to slide $1 or $5 towards the coffers of my cause…
I agree that by “supporting a cause” on Facebook you aren’t really doing much. But how can awareness and exposure for a cause be a bad thing? Yes, people can support organizations and causes and not really support them at all, but at least the organization’s name is getting out there. Awareness is just as important as financial support for organizations and causes. Without that kind of support, there is no one fighting for the organization especially to younger generations.
I agree with the previous post in saying that joining a cause on Facebook doesn’t do much, however if no one told me about these cause on facebook, I probably wouldn’t know about them at all. Facebook is a good way to inform one about a cause. It’s a way to ‘plant a seed’.
Also you can’t clump these ‘groups and causes’ into one category of not being successful. I’m sure that because of a facebook group a change has been made in one area or another. I was a part of a facebook group that was striking against firing an arts teacher at my old college. It was a big deal and it was way to make your voice heard. That facebook page was shown to the dean. Although he was still fired, the dean realized what positive effect this professor had on us students and sent us all an apology letter letting us know that he cared and was thankful for our concern. My point being is, facebook has become more than a status updater or a quick email. It is the BEST place in my opinion to share about a new non-profit organization because of the mass popularity from all over the states. You never know who could read it and could make a difference by helping and saying ‘ACCEPT’ to a new group or cause.
While I have no problem with Causes on Facebook, and am in fact a “follower” of several Causes myself, I really don’t think that these Facebook pages can do much at all by themselves. While they do a great job of promoting awareness of an organization, it is a rather passive way to support a cause. Many cause even collect members and never even send a message or anything about the organization.
I think that Facebook is a good way to supplement traditional marketing and fundraising. It not only promotes awareness of an organization, but especially promotes it to a younger generation who probably would not be donating much money anyway.
Sadly, at the end of the day, a non-profit cannot be sustained through “awareness” alone; there has to be financial support too.
I’ll admit I reject (without reading) about half the Causes on Facebook. However a lot of people don’t, they read about it and maybe even work it into their file folder for cocktail party conversation. Most people would never dream of giving money to a cause because they read about it on facebook, but they may become aware of it and that can always help.
On my facebook account I try to keep it minimal, and I see the causes application as clutter. I just had to go back and check to see if I even had the application and I do not. When it first arrived it was exciting to post on my page some charities and organizations that were near and dear to my heart, but then when I became overwhelmed with invitations to join different causes I felt it was so unnecessary. I wasn’t giving money, and it meant nothing to me to have it on my page or to even be associated with it. But after reading those 4 reasons of how Causes is beneficial it makes me think I may want to add it again. The awareness factor is exciting, by simply having a link to the cause I can be helping them out and not even know it. Isn’t that our favorite way to get involved anyway, by doing as little as possible?