Are twittering charities still stuck on broadcast mode?
A number of people have commented on my increasing levels of generosity over the last month or so.
It’s not that I’ve actually given any extra money to charity. It’s because I’ve been thinking out loud (on Twitter) about setting up a new direct debit as part of a research exercise.
I wanted to find out if charities were starting to listen and engage on Twitter or were still stuck in broadcast mode.
It was prompted by some rather impressive experiences I had with Virgin Media and American Express after publishing a few critical tweets that mentioned them by name. I’ve reproduced the conversation with Virgin below, but the American Express one had a similar positive conclusion.
So what happened when I creaked open my wallet and started tweeting things like…
“I wonder if I should increase my direct debit to <named charity>?”
“Thinking of setting up a new direct debit to <named charity> or <another named charity>? Can’t decide which!”
“Haven’t got a direct debit for a UK children’s charity. Not sure which one to go for?????”
“Thinking of <named charity>, <another named charity>, <yet another named charity? Maybe others?”
Nothing.
None of the charities that I mentioned contacted me. One did start following me but didn’t get in touch.
A few people started recommending their own favourite charities to me – most were small organisations that I didn’t have much knowledge of – and a few were obvious jokes from people I know well.
But only two charities actually asked for a gift. First off was @lucycaldicottfrom CLIC Sargent and second was @VisionAfrica from Vision Africa.
As a result I’m going to be setting up a direct debit with CLIC Sargent and sponsoring a child with Vision Africa.
If you have a search under the last few days worth of tweets on Twitter using terms like “donation” or “direct debit” you’ll find a couple of tweets that might be of interest. There’s even the odd complaint that might be worth a response from the charity concerned.
This is obviously a tiny piece of completely unscientific research, but from what I see on a day to day basis, it’s not far from the truth. If you have examples of charities that are better at looking after their tweeting donors, I’d love to hear about them.
In the meantime, here’s a rather good piece on Mashable that’s worth a read if you are looking for a few tips on using Twitter for customer (or supporter) service. You can read the complete article here, but in summary you should…
- See Twitter as a means to solve supporter problems, generate positive brand image, involve staff and reduce communication costs.
- Track entire conversations about your charity.
- Make supporters (and potential supporters) aware of your presence.
- Respond quickly and transparently.
- Be engaged.
- Be authentic.
It’s easy to broadcast on Twitter, but it’s better to connect.
PS. I haven’t named the charities that I mentioned in my tweets, but if you were curious you could have a dig in my twitter history.
10 Comments
Comments are closed.
The Essentials
‘Tis Halloween. Keep to the light and beware the Four Fundraisers of the Apocalypse!
Why do people give? The Donor Participation Project with Louis Diez.
A guide to fundraising on the back of a postcard
What does the latest research tell us about the state of fundraising?
How do donors manage their philanthropic budgets?
I follow over 150 charities on Twitter and the vast majority ‘broadcast’ or even worse ‘plead’.
Very few follow back let alone converse with us mere mortals.
Philanthropy (and successful Tweeting) is all about ENGAGEMENT.
Mark – spot on insight…it feels as if most of us are unable to catch up, as if there is a runner ahead who’s fit and in the zone and we trail behind with a fag in our mouth. Its often because its too hard because a)someone else stops us b) someone else is in control anyway c) everyone around us doesnt get it. And when someone does get it, we can’t quite be brave enough. I wonder if we should all revolt at the same time, a sort of digital revolution….how about monday? Keep at it….this is winnable….the revolutionary guards are with you…..
There are several reasons for this… not the least of which are consultants who continue to tell charities they should fire anyone who suggests they use Twitter, or who advise charities to get an intern to handle their social media.
Charities want a template guarantee that something will provide a direct ROI. Many charities and consultants have enjoyed lazy, template, fundraising for a very long time. If they invest in a direct mail, and spend X dollars on a good list, tell a good story, and add a premium, they can expect X return over Y number of years. Similarly, major gift programs have been built the same.
Clearly, I’m over simplifying, but you get the picture. Consultants are petrified of losing their clients $$ to social media. They don’t know how to use social media and they can’t guarantee results for clients.
Welcome to the real world. There are no guarantees. We’re in a world where pioneers must think, change, react, daily and constantly. ROI will not be measured directly from an ask, it will be impacted across multiple channels and impact will (ultimately) be seen across events, direct mail, email, major gifts (yes major gifts too), sponsorships and more.
Those charities that do have some kind of social media presence, often pay the person garbage and they get garbage results. It’s a communications person who wouldn’t think to google a new follower and forward the information up to major gifts or the corporate partnership people, or the 3rd party event person. They don’t communicate, because they don’t understand that the follow is the beginning of the relationship. They’ve been taught in traditional communications schools – not in sales, fundraising and community building.
So they spam messages and count followers and hits on links and proclaim success.
It is frustrating and very sad. I don’t know how charities are faring in the UK, but over here, I predict we will lose many charities who just refuse to invest and test and learn in new and challenging times.
Nice test Mark. For the cost of setting up an alert on Twitter etc, charities have missed out on two opportunities of regular giving.
I wonder how many other opportunities are being ignored, for example, by people using Facebook, Twitter etc to ponder out loud that they are running a half marathon but aren’t sure which charity to benefit?
As the person behind @VisionAfrica, thank you for the mention and for taking on a child sponsorship with our organisation.
We’re learning that Twitter can be a great way to engage with people but to make the most of it we have to listen as well as talk…as in any useful communication. Your blogpost has been a reassurance that this theory works!
Thanks very much for choosing CLIC Sargent, Mark. We’re really grateful to you for your support.
Twitter is an ongoing two way conversation and as such is absolutely invaluable for charities as we try to achieve one-on-one dialogue with our supporters.
I started engaging with Twitter more seriously for two reasons.
One that a friend of mine @EmmaK67 told me how much money she and her friends had raised for the Moonwalk purely by publicising it on Twitter. Another was to follow a group of CLIC Sargent supporters @twyclebritain who are doing a sponsored cycle for us and again tweeting about it regularly. It’s been fascinating to watch and participate in the conversations that go on and see how relationships are built over time through regular 160 character tweets.
Can’t recommend Samepoint.com enough – I build into my daily routine – and always get around to saying thanks, retweeting, and engaging with people who have mentioned @WhizzKidz (even – nay, especially – negatively). Great post!
Agreed, charities shouldn’t be in broadcast mode…but I find a lot of businesses do same.
follow-up? In your test did you use the @(charity), a #, or no symbol? Getting at what do we need to have in place to monitor comments and avoid missing things!
Hi Social Capital
No use of # or @. The test replicated the style of tweet that I used for American Express and Virgin.
Thanks for the comments and for reading.
Mark