New on our blog
Email this page
Adam Rothwell
- Thursday, July 10, 2008
I was going to call this post something like, ‘Social media: charities don't understand,’ or, perhaps, ‘Web 2.0: charities don't know what it means.’ But then I realized that the problem charities have runs deeper. They don't understand the internet. Full stop.At the most basic level, most charity websites are still rubbish. Finding useful information on them – such as a copy of the annual report, or an FAQ section answering donors’ concerns – is near-impossible. As part of our charity-profiling process, we search for this information on a daily basis. We hardly ever find it.
Online fundraising is also something charities approach with trepidation. At this year’s Institute of Fundraising National Convention, there was much chat about using the web to raise money – but the discussion seemed (I wasn’t there) to be stalled at the stage of pondering the function of websites per se. Couple that with research which shows that charities are terrible at online communication with their biggest donors – those prepared to leave money in their will – and the picture looks bleak.
But then there’s Web 2.0 to think about. Unsurprisingly perhaps, charities which have trouble grasping website basics find it hard to adapt to the not-so-new ideas of user-feedback and discussion. But the near-unrelenting terribleness of the charity’s world’s blogosphere takes some getting used to.
By way of illustration, this week’s Third Sector magazine provides a handy run-down of charities’ leading bloggers. One of those named – Stephen Bubb – produces a wonderful confection of a blog, stuffed full of insights and idiosyncrasies. But the other ‘leading bloggers’ are serious underachievers. Adam Sampson of Shelter updates his blog once a month, and when he does, his posts tend to be anodyne. Barbara Stocking of Oxfam apparently hasn’t updated her blog for over a year. And Clarissa Baldwin of Dogs Trust writes like a PR person.
Blogs are hardly a new idea, yet charities still don't seem to understand them. I don't expect charity types to get down with the kids at the (often silly) leading edge of web-based communication. But blogs – and, for heaven’s sake, websites – have been around for a while now. There’s no excuse for not understanding what they are, or how they work.
This is a big missed opportunity. Not only are charities passing up the chance to raise large amounts of cash through effective websites. They’re also missing the opportunity to get into proper relationships with their supporters. The web allows charities to communicate more effectively than ever. But many many seem keen to pass up this opportunity. And that really is very sad.
Interesting post - I agree that an awful lot of charities don't "get" the internet. The same can be said for an awful lot of businesses, and an awful lot of the "general public" too.
We're a completely "virtual" charity, and we've had reasonably successful blogs on all our sites for a while now:
http://www.youthnet.org/blog/
http://www.do-it.org.uk/magazine/blogs
http://www.thesite.org/community/thestaffroom
...but I think your comment that "Clarissa Baldwin of Dogs Trust writes like a PR person" is probably understandable seeing as she joined Dogs Trust in 1974 as Head of Public Relations prior to which she had worked in a Public Relations Consultancy - http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/press_office/spokespeople/clarissabaldwin/
To be honest, I wish more charities would produce web content of a PR standard than some of the usual drivel we're treated to. I think this is where the issue lies - is poor web content better than no web content? To savvy web users, I genuinely suspect not.
Catman: Yes. The figure for basic profiles includes 19.4p of overhead-cost allocation.
Adam, Intelligent Giving
I am assuming that your basic profile is done by volunteers, hence the low cost, but does the 30p include on costs/overheads?
ta
catman
I've now updated the figures: it costs just under £30 for us to produce each blog entry.
Adam, Intelligent Giving
I'm glad to hear that Catman thinks our basic charity profiles are a bargain. Praise from our critics is always, of course, pleasing to hear.
However, the figure for how much it costs for us to produce a blog is actually (and a little embarassingly) out-of-date. The £80 cost was calculated on the basis that it would take me half a day to write a blog. The sums we did involved working out what half-a-day of my time was worth (you can see how much I get paid here, if you're interested), and then adding in a fair allocation of overhead costs (like my desk rent in the office and the associated depreciation of my computer etc., whilst writing).
However, in recent weeks I've speeded up my blogging process, meaning that I now usually take about 60-90mins of writing and publishing time before each entry goes live. This means it now (probably) costs us £40 or less per blog entry.
Of course, it's a rubish of us not to have updated the £80 figure to take my speedier blogging habits into account. We will make the change tomorrow. But in the meantime: thank you, Catman, for pointing out our mistake. I apologize for not correcting it sooner.
Adam, Intelligent Giving
Adam,
Just been checking out your new donate site...not sure whether it is a revolution in fundraising but at least you've woken up to the world of justgiving. However, two of your shopping list items confused me:
The basic profile looks like a right bargain, but I'm not sure that your blogs are worth £80 a pop. In the interests of accountability and transparency, how, perchance did you reach this figure?
many thanks,
catman
Exactly how many charities exist that have the internet as one of their charitable objectives? And how many have other charitable objectives for which the internet is a tool they may or may not have the time and resources to use properly for their work.
Over the past 13 years I've seen some great sites on the internet. And some pretty dire ones.
Many charities have taken the time and resources to create a web prescence. Even in at least one case, setting up inside an online world too (in Second Life).
But for the vast majority, its taking some money that could be spent elsewhere and spending it on the internet.
Can be very useful mind, can attract supporters and donations that perhaps the charity wouldn't get any other way.
But can also be a drain on resources.
Charities will catch up eventually.
Come to think of it, how many of us understand the internet? I use it every day, I'd even say I'm addicted to it. But understand it all? No way.
Martin
This article's right - charities (and the voluntary sector as a whole) could make much more of the internet.
But isn't their lack of online presence as much because they shy away from accountability and transparency, as because they are technophobic?
In international development, it is charities' unwillingness to be forthright with donors about both successes and failures - whether it is online or not - which is really the problem.
For more see: http://thatsthewaythemoneygoes.blogspot.com/
Post new comment
Recent comments
4 hours 34 min ago
21 hours 15 min ago
3 days 26 min ago
3 days 1 hour ago
3 days 22 hours ago
3 days 23 hours ago
4 days 50 min ago
4 days 1 hour ago
4 days 1 hour ago
4 days 3 hours ago