{"id":1286,"date":"2009-04-23T10:50:50","date_gmt":"2009-04-23T17:50:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/artfulmanager\/wp\/2009\/04\/facebook_and_philanthropy\/"},"modified":"2009-04-23T10:50:50","modified_gmt":"2009-04-23T17:50:50","slug":"facebook_and_philanthropy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/artfulmanager\/main\/facebook_and_philanthropy.php","title":{"rendered":"Facebook and philanthropy"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>I was all geared up to write a response to the <i>Washington Post<\/i> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-dyn\/content\/article\/2009\/04\/21\/AR2009042103786.html?sub=AR\">critique on the Facebook &#8221;Causes&#8221; application<\/a>, but others with better ideas than mine beat me to the post. The <i>Post<\/i> article suggests that <a href=\"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/apps\/application.php?id=2318966938\">the application<\/a>, which allows supporters\/champions of nonprofits to share their enthusiasm and encourage contributions, is ineffective as compared to other fundraising strategies, and therefore flawed. <\/p>\n<p>As other bloggers have noted, &#8221;ineffective&#8221; contains a bundle of assumptions worthy of deconstruction. And the expectations\/assumptions about social network sites as fundraising tools is chief among those assumptions.<\/p>\n<p>Beth Kanter (thanks to @lisa_hoang) offers<a href=\"http:\/\/beth.typepad.com\/beths_blog\/2009\/04\/hello-washington-post-dolllars-per-facebook-donor-is-not-the-right-metric-for-success.html\"> links and summaries to many responses<\/a>, chief among them <a href=\"http:\/\/afine2.wordpress.com\/2009\/04\/22\/wash-post-disses-causes-on-facebook\/\">Allison Fine<\/a>, who deconstructs some of the lessons we&#8217;re learning through the Causes application beyond &#8221;effective&#8221; or &#8221;ineffective.&#8221;<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Causes enables a lot of people to &#8220;support a cause.&#8221; In old thinking that meant only one thing: give us money.&nbsp; But in connected thinking, it means that each one of us is can be more than an ATM for our causes.&nbsp; Causes on FB enables us to tell our own world &#8212; distinct from <i>the<\/i> world &#8212; about the issues, campaigns, orgs that they are passionate about.<\/li>\n<li>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&#8230;but given the low cost, even folks in the &#8221;long tail&#8221; can win.]<\/li>\n<li>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&#8230;dollars raised is an important but meaningless metric unless measured against others described below.]<\/li>\n<li>If Causes was judged on awareness only it would get an A+ &#8212; there are very few mechanisms that enable communities of people to&nbsp; learn so much about causes so inexpensively.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>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&#8217;s an extraordinary resource to enable your friends and supporters to spread their enthusiasm. And that can&#8217;t be bad.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I was all geared up to write a response to the Washington Post critique on the Facebook &#8221;Causes&#8221; 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 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-1286","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-main","7":"entry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/artfulmanager\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1286","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/artfulmanager\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/artfulmanager\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/artfulmanager\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/artfulmanager\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1286"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/artfulmanager\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1286\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/artfulmanager\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1286"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/artfulmanager\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1286"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/artfulmanager\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1286"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}