Online Networking Fundraisers: Are They Too Exclusive?
Image from charity: water, supported by first Twestival Global
“Tweet. Meet. Give.” This is the slogan for the Twestival, or Twitter Festival, one of the newest cause marketing tactics designed to allow people who follow one another on Twitter to meet in person while at the same time raising money for a good cause. The idea for the event came about in September 2008 in London when a group of four social media users and nonprofit public relations professionals, including Twestival leader Amanda Rose, decided they wanted to raise money for The Connection, an organization that provides specialist services to homeless people. After only three weeks of planning, the first Twestival attracted close to 300 attendees. Drawing on the event’s success, Rose brought together over 1,000 volunteers and 10,000 donors to hold the first Twestival Global in support of charity: water on February 12, 2009 in 202 cities around the world. Every dollar raised from these events goes directly to the selected nonprofit, and over $250,000 was raised that February. Drawing on Twestival Global’s success, over one weekend in September 2009, Twestival Local allowed 130 cities supported local causes and nonprofits. There is currently another Twestival Global (for Concern Worldwide, an NGO devoted to the elimination of poverty) planned for March 2010.
Over the past several years there has been an influx of this type of digital giving. Many people have been arguing that digital giving is trying to replace traditional fundraising methods and is failing to integrate with them. Yet technology cannot simply replace a clear mission and personalization. To maintain a sense of community, organizations need to do more than is required to acquire a person’s one-time donation. Even if organizations can find ways of holding on to their constituents past a single donation, not all parties benefit from online networking fundraisers. Technology is still exclusive. It must be used as just one way of fundraising rather than an organization’s primary effort. Especially in the arts sector where a large amount of constituents are older and may not use the Internet as much as younger audiences, this balance is imperative.
There are three main issues with online giving that I see in relation to the Twestival:
1. Online giving is unsustainable giving.
The struggle nonprofits have with online giving strategies is in building the online community and including ongoing opportunities to keep their constituents engaged and interested in the cause offline. Online giving can augment offline development within nonprofits not only by allowing organizations more time to focus on other tasks, but in garnering online support from people who may not have had an existing relationship with or knowledge about the organization. Organizations with similar goals may also be able to connect with one another through online networking and build on one another as a partnership.
2. Online giving creates a disconnect between its planners and beneficiaries.
Despite the participatory and charitable nature of the Twestival, there are still many issues at stake in terms of the planning of a Twitter festival. It is immediately apparent that the charity/nonprofit being benefitted is not the event organizer. Beth Kanter sees this as a problem because these organizations cannot impose any branding or messaging standards, since each event is entirely designed by their stakeholders. Kanter interviewed the nonprofit marketing consultant David Kinard, who explains his own concerns about peer-to-peer fundraising:
[…] if you give a hundred people tools to lay bricks, you’ll likely get a hundred small structures. If you give a hundred people the tools to lay bricks and get them working off a shared plan, then you can build anything you want. I am all for equipping believers of a cause to go out to the world and do good… but I am less enthusiastic of sending out a swarm of independent mavericks […] If large independent change-agents force sector leaders to take their eyes off the ball of their primary mission, then I think we’ve done more damage than good.
These concerns extend to the Twestival’s use of media, and Twitter here in particular, because Kinard worries that this peer-to-peer fundraising that Twitter promotes actually replaces the bigger picture and diminishes the greater good. Henry Jenkins’ notion of the ethics challenge, as described in his paper Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century, questions the new form of leadership cultivated by the Twestival. He explains it as “the breakdown of traditional forms of professional training and socialization that might prepare young people for their increasingly public roles as media makers and community participants” (p. 3). Similar to Kinard, he worries about the emerging lack of professionalism and ethical guidelines in our new participatory culture.
3. Online giving assumes our access to technology.
What I believe is the most vital online giving issue is the assumption that everyone dedicated to a particular cause has a Twitter account. Not only that, but ideally the cause would already have a Twitter following. Otherwise it may be very difficult to form a community of likeminded people if there is no single place, like a list of followers, to locate these people. Jenkins acknowledges this issue as the participation gap, or “the unequal access to the opportunities, experiences, skills, and knowledge […]” (p. 3). At its core, the Twestival is exclusive; it fails to integrate social media other than Twitter. Even though Twitter is a free platform, not everyone has the time or skills to manage an account. While these people can still view public Twitter feeds, they cannot participate in the conversation. Additionally, while these people can also still buy tickets online and attend the live event to show their support both monetarily and physically, only two of the three actions in the Twestival’s tagline, “Tweet. Meet. Give.” then apply. When taken out of the context of Twitter, the Twestival does not adhere to its mission, and it does not foster conversation.
Some people may wonder if the technical evolution we are experiencing is ruining community rather than fostering community. Is technology replacing face-to-face contact? An option of the Twestival is to donate without actually purchasing a ticket for the event, and we already saw that people can attend the event without participating in the tweet-up. The Twestival encompasses so many media, yet using one medium does not necessarily imply the use of another. Is it more important that all of the media work together to achieve a clear mission, or is it more important that everyone has access to at least one medium? During this transition to a more participatory culture, these questions may not have an answer. We are embarking on a new generation of giving and leading, and everything we know about these ideas are constantly changing. While Brian Solis quite fittingly realizes that “Money doesn’t grow on trees, but it does grow on tweets…” it is only a matter of time before tweets, too, become irrelevant. We just have to stay on our toes and be ready to take on the next challenge.
In addition to the articles I referenced in this post, please check out the following worthwhile readings on the costs and benefits of Twitter fundraising, and keep the conversation going!
10 Tips for Successful Twitter Fundraising
Twestival and How to Prevent Cause Fatigue
Twitter for Nonprofits and Fundraising
Tips for Using Twitter as a Fundraising Tool
Haiti Fundraising Speeds Up with Twitter, Facebook
--
Arielle Sherman is a California- born and raised Arts Management graduate student adjusting to a not-so-sunny life in the Pacific Northwest. You can find her on Twitter @arielle_rose1 or via e-mail: arsherman@gmail.com.
