I'm not sure how closely any of you have been following the legal battles over "net neutrality" but the FCC has issued new (draft) rules that would effectively kill it (along with the ability of most nonprofits to use the web as an inexpensive communications strategy), all while wrapping itself up in the language of net neutrality.
Net neutrality is the concept that all content traffic on the web should be treated equally, and that ISPs (the companies you purchase your internet access from, like Comcast, Verizon, etc.) can't pick and choose which content you access (as long as it's legal), or send you one website at a quicker download speed than another.
Net neutrality is why your website should load in a browser at the same speed as Facebook (taking into account that large photos or videos take longer than text). Net neutrality is how start-ups compete with the established net giants, like Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and Amazon. Net neutrality is the even playing field that gives all information and ideas a fair chance at finding an audience.
The new proposed rules from the FCC would allow ISPs to set up "fast lanes" for those content providers who can pay them the extra fees (the established net biggies), and put all other internet traffic into the slow lane, stifling conversation and innovation along with it.
Guess which lane most nonprofits will find themselves in (unless we each find a generous benefactor who will pay off all the ISPs for us)?
Bottom line for nonprofits: If this proposal is accepted, and these rules go into effect, it could be much harder (and much more expensive) for us to communicate with the public about our missions and the good work we do. If our sites load at 1996 speeds, donors, volunteers, and others interested in learning about our missions will not be very motivated to stick with us long enough for our homepage to load.
Here's a great article that explains what's happening, and what the dangers are (click here).
And here's a petition that you may sign onto (click here).
Remember, as nonprofits you have to be careful about endorsing particular candidates and parties, but you are allowed to inform, educate, and take part in public policy debates that effect your mission or your ability to do your work.
(NOTE: The final language of the proposed rules will be released at the FCC meeting on May 15. That will begin the official public comment period before the rules are formally adopted. Public comment will be at least 30 days, likely longer. Petitions and letters now are still helpful and may influence the draft that is coming on May 15.)
Showing posts with label websites. Show all posts
Showing posts with label websites. Show all posts
Thursday, May 01, 2014
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Charity Apps Love 'em and Hate 'em
As nonprofit professionals, we're always interested in ways to increase giving and reach new donors. Several new websites and mobile apps also seek to do just that. Some for better, some for... well, let's just say that sometimes even the folks who want to help us don't quite get it.
Let's start with what I find to be the best of this set, CharitySub. The premise is simple, and just an updated spin on giving circles. Rather than a small group of friends pooling their resources to make a sizable donation to a local cause, it's potentially thousands of like-minded strangers pooling their resources online to create an impact.
CharitySub is short for Charity Subscription, and the subscription fee is $5 per month. At the start of each month, all subscribers are presented with background information on three different nonprofits working on a particular cause. Subscribers then select where they want their $5 to go to. The next month, three more nonprofits are presented.
For the new (younger?) donor, who would like to learn more about nonprofits and various causes, and be reminded to try to give a little each month, CharitySub could be a great door-opener.
The folks at Johnson & Johnson have entered the mobile photo market with their new Donate A Photo app. Rather than encouraging direct philanthropy, as CharitySub does, Donate A Photo seeks to harness the power of "slacktivism" to fuel Johnson & Johnson's corporate giving.
Users install the app and use it to share their photos to twiiter or facebook, just as they would with most any other photo app, but with the added graphics promoting Donate A Photo and Johnson & Johnson. In exchange, J&J will donate $1 for each photo you post (one photo a day limit per user) to your chosen cause.
Finally, we come to Budge. What can I say about Budge other than, with friends like this, who needs detractors. Yes, if people use this app, it will result in donations to charities. But it hardly encourages philanthropy. Quite the opposite. In their own words, "charity can be a bit of a drag" and "drain the bank account." But they also believe people are "fundamentally good" so they devised the Budge.
With the Budge app, users challenge their friends to contests and games. The loser of the contest "has to" make a micro-donation to a charity (no explanation of how small a donation "micro" is given). That "winners" don't give to charity - charity's only for losers - is simply not the message I think any of us want to promulgate. Thanks, but no thanks.
By the way, the apps reviewed above all came to me through a technology newsletter I get each day called Netted. Each day they send new sites and apps; yesterday's just happened to focus on charity apps.
On another note, I will be teaching a free lunchtime workshop, "Can Crowdfunding Help Your Nonprofit Raise $ and Supporters?" at the Community Foundation Santa Cruz County on Thursday, August 1st. I've got some great research into the preferences of young donors, and how to reach them through crowdfunding. Yes, I'll be talking some about Benevolent.net, but that's only part of the story.
Let's start with what I find to be the best of this set, CharitySub. The premise is simple, and just an updated spin on giving circles. Rather than a small group of friends pooling their resources to make a sizable donation to a local cause, it's potentially thousands of like-minded strangers pooling their resources online to create an impact.
CharitySub is short for Charity Subscription, and the subscription fee is $5 per month. At the start of each month, all subscribers are presented with background information on three different nonprofits working on a particular cause. Subscribers then select where they want their $5 to go to. The next month, three more nonprofits are presented.
For the new (younger?) donor, who would like to learn more about nonprofits and various causes, and be reminded to try to give a little each month, CharitySub could be a great door-opener.
Users install the app and use it to share their photos to twiiter or facebook, just as they would with most any other photo app, but with the added graphics promoting Donate A Photo and Johnson & Johnson. In exchange, J&J will donate $1 for each photo you post (one photo a day limit per user) to your chosen cause.
Finally, we come to Budge. What can I say about Budge other than, with friends like this, who needs detractors. Yes, if people use this app, it will result in donations to charities. But it hardly encourages philanthropy. Quite the opposite. In their own words, "charity can be a bit of a drag" and "drain the bank account." But they also believe people are "fundamentally good" so they devised the Budge.
With the Budge app, users challenge their friends to contests and games. The loser of the contest "has to" make a micro-donation to a charity (no explanation of how small a donation "micro" is given). That "winners" don't give to charity - charity's only for losers - is simply not the message I think any of us want to promulgate. Thanks, but no thanks.
By the way, the apps reviewed above all came to me through a technology newsletter I get each day called Netted. Each day they send new sites and apps; yesterday's just happened to focus on charity apps.
On another note, I will be teaching a free lunchtime workshop, "Can Crowdfunding Help Your Nonprofit Raise $ and Supporters?" at the Community Foundation Santa Cruz County on Thursday, August 1st. I've got some great research into the preferences of young donors, and how to reach them through crowdfunding. Yes, I'll be talking some about Benevolent.net, but that's only part of the story.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Nonprofit Website Mistakes: Lack of Transparency
When people talk about mistakes nonprofits make with their websites, the first thing that comes to mind is usually either no direct donate button from the front page, or an unclear mission statement. But I'd like to focus on a different type of mistake; lack of transparency.
First off, what do I mean by "transparency?" I'm talking about communicating with your community (clients, members, potential donors, neighbors, elected officials, etc.) as openly, honestly, and fully about your operations as is practical and legal to do so.
And I'm not just talking about your programs and the great deeds that your organization performs. I assume that's already on your website (and if it's not, you need a far more remedial article than this one). I'm talking about your finances, your governance, and your management of the public trust.
Because that's what a nonprofit is: A public trust. You have been granted your 501(c)3 (and your special tax status) to produce something of benefit to the public, and the public is, in many very real ways, the ultimate shareholders of your corporation - even more so than your board members, clients, or staff.
These days the public finds it hard to trust in many institutions (and who can blame them). Lack of trust in nonprofits leads to lack of donations, and restrictions on what we can ultimately accomplish. By being as transparent as possible you inspire trust in your organization, and (hopefully) in the nonprofit sector as a whole. And trust, in turn, inspires donations.
So, how do you make your website "transparent?" Here are a few suggestions to get you started...
Post Your 990s - Your IRS form 990 tax returns are already public information to those who know where to find them (on guidestar.org, for example). But why make people look for them elsewhere? Have your accountant create a pdf file of your 990s and post them annually as soon as you have filed.
Post Your Audits - Show your donors that your finances are in order and have passed a critical inspection. You spend your money responsibly; let your community know.
Post Board Activity - Maybe full board meeting minutes would be a bit too detailed, but why not a monthly summary of board activity and decisions made? A good way to do this is with the next suggestion...
Start Blogging - Show that your efforts at transparency aren't just an annual activity coinciding with your audit and 990s. Make a regular effort to inform your constituents of what is happening behind the scenes in your organization. This could include staff changes, new funding received, even problems with the plumbing (who knows, maybe one of your readers can volunteer a solution!).
Contact Information! - I can't believe the number of nonprofit websites I visit that have a board listing (names only, no affiliations) and a senior staff listing, but then only one general information email address. How about full staff listings with all emails and more some information on your board members. If board members don't all want their emails listed, how about at least the board chair, or maybe a "catch-all" email (board@yourorg.org) that you can forward to each of them?
These are just a few ideas to get you going, I'm sure you can come up with many more once you start thinking about your organization, and how you communicate with your community.
First off, what do I mean by "transparency?" I'm talking about communicating with your community (clients, members, potential donors, neighbors, elected officials, etc.) as openly, honestly, and fully about your operations as is practical and legal to do so.
And I'm not just talking about your programs and the great deeds that your organization performs. I assume that's already on your website (and if it's not, you need a far more remedial article than this one). I'm talking about your finances, your governance, and your management of the public trust.
Because that's what a nonprofit is: A public trust. You have been granted your 501(c)3 (and your special tax status) to produce something of benefit to the public, and the public is, in many very real ways, the ultimate shareholders of your corporation - even more so than your board members, clients, or staff.
These days the public finds it hard to trust in many institutions (and who can blame them). Lack of trust in nonprofits leads to lack of donations, and restrictions on what we can ultimately accomplish. By being as transparent as possible you inspire trust in your organization, and (hopefully) in the nonprofit sector as a whole. And trust, in turn, inspires donations.
So, how do you make your website "transparent?" Here are a few suggestions to get you started...
Post Your 990s - Your IRS form 990 tax returns are already public information to those who know where to find them (on guidestar.org, for example). But why make people look for them elsewhere? Have your accountant create a pdf file of your 990s and post them annually as soon as you have filed.
Post Your Audits - Show your donors that your finances are in order and have passed a critical inspection. You spend your money responsibly; let your community know.
Post Board Activity - Maybe full board meeting minutes would be a bit too detailed, but why not a monthly summary of board activity and decisions made? A good way to do this is with the next suggestion...
Start Blogging - Show that your efforts at transparency aren't just an annual activity coinciding with your audit and 990s. Make a regular effort to inform your constituents of what is happening behind the scenes in your organization. This could include staff changes, new funding received, even problems with the plumbing (who knows, maybe one of your readers can volunteer a solution!).
Contact Information! - I can't believe the number of nonprofit websites I visit that have a board listing (names only, no affiliations) and a senior staff listing, but then only one general information email address. How about full staff listings with all emails and more some information on your board members. If board members don't all want their emails listed, how about at least the board chair, or maybe a "catch-all" email (board@yourorg.org) that you can forward to each of them?
These are just a few ideas to get you going, I'm sure you can come up with many more once you start thinking about your organization, and how you communicate with your community.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Welcome to Capaciteria
Capaciteria? Yes, Capaciteria, "Serving up peer-rated nonprofit capacity resources 24/7." According the site's home page, Capaciteria is...
Right now, you can still search, or dig through the directory, and find some great resources, but the concept of the site is that each resource will eventually carry a rating. The ratings will come from us, the end users, who are ourselves experts in the nonprofit field.
Whether or not Capaciteria becomes an indispensable resource, or just another e-ghost town, will depend entirely on whether or not users are enticed to contribute. I'll withhold my feelings on its odds of success for a while, watch it grow (or not), and see what happens. Meanwhile, check it out and let me know what you think.
... a comprehensive, searchable database directory of administrative resources that help nonprofits leverage their own capacity. It promotes peer review because MEMBERS can comment on and rate individual resource links as well as add useful new links.The site appears to still be very new (although I suspect it's been up a while) and some of the categories don't have much information in them yet, but if enough users join and input their links and rate the other links, this could be a very useful site, given time.
Right now, you can still search, or dig through the directory, and find some great resources, but the concept of the site is that each resource will eventually carry a rating. The ratings will come from us, the end users, who are ourselves experts in the nonprofit field.
Whether or not Capaciteria becomes an indispensable resource, or just another e-ghost town, will depend entirely on whether or not users are enticed to contribute. I'll withhold my feelings on its odds of success for a while, watch it grow (or not), and see what happens. Meanwhile, check it out and let me know what you think.
Monday, December 04, 2006
The future of online fundraising
I received an email from a college student asking if he could interview me about ePhilanthropy and the future of online fundraising.
The questions gave me an opportunity to think creatively about the application of some web 2.0 concepts, such as tagging and feeds, and how they can improve our practices.
His questions and my answers follow. Let me know what you think...
> * How did Internet change the way nonprofits fundraise?
Maybe a better question would be, "HAS the Internet changed the way nonprofits fundraise?" Because for a lot of organizations, it still hasn't.
There are certainly plenty of new tools, but most nonprofits (outside of universities and hospitals) are traditionally very slow to adopt new technologies. This is for a few reasons, including: budget, being "people focused," lack of staff/resources, and budget (did I mention budget?).
Still, for those organizations that are on the ball, technically speaking, it has broadened their tools for appeals. The most obvious direct items are "Donate Now" buttons (either their own or using an ASP) and email. The less direct way is using the 'net for promotion, communications, and visibility.
Email can be used for a direct appeal, or for newsletters with indirect asks. But, again, limited budget and staff to implement these has kept most smaller and medium sized organizations from fully realizing the potential benefit of these tools.
I mention budget a lot. Email is cheap to use, and scales cheaply, but can be costly to implement effectively (opt-in systems to avoid spamming, software or ASP's beyond the basic MS Outlook, and the staff to actually manage lists and write the messages).
> * Is traditional fundraising still part of the fundraising mix?
Most definitely so. For the reasons listed above (slow implementation, budget, etc.), but also because of human nature.
While online tools are fabulous for meeting new donors, and younger donors, there is nothing that can ever compare to the personal touch of the in-person ask.
Even snail mail has a place, as it's far easier to make an emotional connection with a photo you can hold in your hand than with an email that may or may not properly display images based on the user's software settings and operating system.
In the area of Foundation grants, the worlds are merging somewhat as more and more Foundations accept online applications. It is traditional fundraising in terms of the skills required for completing the applications, but they are adapted to the online world.
For that matter, you could say that all online fundraising is just an adaptation of traditional methods. It's the medium that has changed - or expanded - not the message or the appeal.
> * The future of online fundraising?
More effective integration of cause and effect using tags and feeds. For example, it's entirely feasible for a news website to automatically match stories (IE: flood in India) to donation opportunities (IE: International Red Cross).
They do this now, manually, with major disasters. But with proper use of tagging, RSS, etc., it's entirely possible that even "minor" local stories (IE: car crash kills drunk driver) can automatically linked to local causes (IE: local United Way or MADD or AA chapter).
What I'm saying is really, technology gives us the opportunities to be more pro-active and less passive in our efforts. Rather than waiting for a potential supporter to come to our web site or sign up for our email newsletter, we will be able to find them based on what they're reading and hook directly into their online experience.
> * Why are many nonprofit are still waiting with their online fundraising?
Money, or the perception of no money. While many of these tools are low or even no cost (use of blogspot.com as a communications platform), they are loath to give even the impression that they are wasting resources.
Example: An organization I know of that was given very nice, high quality office chairs from a defunct dot-com. They were not allowed to use them because it gave the impression that they were extravagant. Many nonprofits live in this poverty mind-set.
Any assets must go to the clients. Anything that doesn't directly benefit them is seen as a waste. What they don't see is that a small investment in online tools will create a return that can be used for mission and services.
> * What will make a website a good ePhilanthropy site?
See "the future" question above. It's the integration of information and ask. Don't make the potential donor search for the means to give.
Have the opportunity linked directly into the inspiration. This is the answer.
The questions gave me an opportunity to think creatively about the application of some web 2.0 concepts, such as tagging and feeds, and how they can improve our practices.
His questions and my answers follow. Let me know what you think...
> * How did Internet change the way nonprofits fundraise?
Maybe a better question would be, "HAS the Internet changed the way nonprofits fundraise?" Because for a lot of organizations, it still hasn't.
There are certainly plenty of new tools, but most nonprofits (outside of universities and hospitals) are traditionally very slow to adopt new technologies. This is for a few reasons, including: budget, being "people focused," lack of staff/resources, and budget (did I mention budget?).
Still, for those organizations that are on the ball, technically speaking, it has broadened their tools for appeals. The most obvious direct items are "Donate Now" buttons (either their own or using an ASP) and email. The less direct way is using the 'net for promotion, communications, and visibility.
Email can be used for a direct appeal, or for newsletters with indirect asks. But, again, limited budget and staff to implement these has kept most smaller and medium sized organizations from fully realizing the potential benefit of these tools.
I mention budget a lot. Email is cheap to use, and scales cheaply, but can be costly to implement effectively (opt-in systems to avoid spamming, software or ASP's beyond the basic MS Outlook, and the staff to actually manage lists and write the messages).
> * Is traditional fundraising still part of the fundraising mix?
Most definitely so. For the reasons listed above (slow implementation, budget, etc.), but also because of human nature.
While online tools are fabulous for meeting new donors, and younger donors, there is nothing that can ever compare to the personal touch of the in-person ask.
Even snail mail has a place, as it's far easier to make an emotional connection with a photo you can hold in your hand than with an email that may or may not properly display images based on the user's software settings and operating system.
In the area of Foundation grants, the worlds are merging somewhat as more and more Foundations accept online applications. It is traditional fundraising in terms of the skills required for completing the applications, but they are adapted to the online world.
For that matter, you could say that all online fundraising is just an adaptation of traditional methods. It's the medium that has changed - or expanded - not the message or the appeal.
> * The future of online fundraising?
More effective integration of cause and effect using tags and feeds. For example, it's entirely feasible for a news website to automatically match stories (IE: flood in India) to donation opportunities (IE: International Red Cross).
They do this now, manually, with major disasters. But with proper use of tagging, RSS, etc., it's entirely possible that even "minor" local stories (IE: car crash kills drunk driver) can automatically linked to local causes (IE: local United Way or MADD or AA chapter).
What I'm saying is really, technology gives us the opportunities to be more pro-active and less passive in our efforts. Rather than waiting for a potential supporter to come to our web site or sign up for our email newsletter, we will be able to find them based on what they're reading and hook directly into their online experience.
> * Why are many nonprofit are still waiting with their online fundraising?
Money, or the perception of no money. While many of these tools are low or even no cost (use of blogspot.com as a communications platform), they are loath to give even the impression that they are wasting resources.
Example: An organization I know of that was given very nice, high quality office chairs from a defunct dot-com. They were not allowed to use them because it gave the impression that they were extravagant. Many nonprofits live in this poverty mind-set.
Any assets must go to the clients. Anything that doesn't directly benefit them is seen as a waste. What they don't see is that a small investment in online tools will create a return that can be used for mission and services.
> * What will make a website a good ePhilanthropy site?
See "the future" question above. It's the integration of information and ask. Don't make the potential donor search for the means to give.
Have the opportunity linked directly into the inspiration. This is the answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)