Social media has helped influence the way we donate to charity. It has made the experience more interesting, and makes it easier to get your friends involved. Sites like JustGiving make it easy to co-ordinate sponsored activities (and in the UK, integrates ‘GiftAid’; something many individuals would not bother with when organising such events) and gives the security of knowing that the money (besides a minimal fee) goes to the charity. Others, like the Causes application on Facebook, simultaneously raise both awareness and money.
Whilst people would likely donate to sponsored events even if tools like JustGiving did not exist, sites like that make it much easier to collect donations from distant sources (like friends hundreds of miles away). Sites like JustGiving have developed Facebook apps, so that new technologies can work with them. JustGiving is unfortunately not a free service, and charges charities £15 a month and charge a transaction fee per donation (this is about 5-6%, plus card processing fees). It could be cheaper for some charities to process transactions directly, but I don’t think this is really an unreasonable fee.
I find things like the Causes app much more interesting. They cleverly integrate the social element of it with a fundraising one. However, form my observations, it can have very different results. The amount donated per cause member wildly differs.
Causes with specific fundraising aims, or which serve a select audience, seem to perform better. For example, a Cause that aims to buy a bus for an Indian orphanage has raised over $2,500 with less than 60 members (about $50 on average per member), whilst a Cause that aims to abolish the death penalty has over 100,000 members, but has only raised about $1,000 (less than a cent per member). Whilst it could be argued this due to the moral problems some people may have, much less controversial causes like a cancer prevention one suffer a similar fate: it has over 5,000,000 members but has only raised $130,000 (about 2 cents per member). Another cause, which aims to buy mosquito nets has 15,000 members who have donated over $25,000. Donations seem to be made more generously when the donors know what it’s going to be spent on (whether a bus or mosquito nets!), but less generously on bigger causes with no specific material item being purchased (whether this be opposition to the death penalty, or cancer research) don’t get as many donations per member.
Some charities try to make giving more fun through the Internet, too. UK homelessness charity Shelter allows donors to buy a virtual house from £10 on their website, which can then have a picture, link and message when clicked on. This is advertising in the spirit of the Million Dollar Homepage, but mixing in a charitable element. Innovative, but virtual land isn’t exactly in short supply and you have to wonder how much money it raised for them.
Online giving seems to work best on a small scale, with specific aims, whilst large general campaigns – whether fighting cancer of abolishing the death penalty – will get lots of supporters, but not as much money per supporter!
I have found the Internet makes it easier and more interesting to donate money, but I’m sure some charities could get more donations if they better used it.
