The Chronicle of Philanthropy just posted a note about an article in The Atlantic called “UNICEF Tells Slacktivists: Give Money, Not Facebook Likes.”
This really bothers me.
How dare we as NGOs or nonprofits command people in how to support us. How dare we berate them for “only” helping their friends know we exist by sharing about us on social media.
When we get to the point of feeling so frustrated that people aren’t giving, we need to grow up and realize our donors or “slacktivists” aren’t the problem. We are.
People Give Money Because They Are Asked
Study after study shows the #1 reason people don’t give is they’re not asked. It stands to reason the #1 reason people “like” a page on Facebook is that they are asked.
I’m glad UNICEF Sweden is helping people realize that as nice as “social proof” is, a like alone doesn’t save a life. But to have a harsh video like the one below beat up on people for not giving? That is a waste of resources and trust.
UNICEF Sweden spent alot time, effort, and presumably money, to basically tell the world their fundraising is ineffective.
I sure hope they got a government grant to fund it.
Get Better at Asking!
If your nonprofit isn’t getting the funding it needs, get better at asking. Don’t whine that people are “only” amplifying your message on social media. Sheesh. Many nonprofits would love to have that “problem.”
Lot’s of great training is out there. There are free fundraising articles and fundraising books and DVDs here on this site. The site www.MovieMondaysVideos.com offers free fundraising help. The presenters from Charity How To offer amazing webinars. A bunch of us have created 100 Donors in 90 Days and the companion Donor Retention Project.
Dozens of my colleagues have excellent blogs and websites, many with links on the right side of this blog. Even a simple Google search on “fundraising help” brings up great tools.
There’s simply no excuse for bad asking. UNICEF Sweden, if you need help, email me. I even speak Swedish.
The irony? I found UNICEF Sweden’s video on YouTube. Another social media site. Ironic, no?
Great post, Marc. Obviously we’re in agreement! Great tips on doing a better job. An interesting note – Unicef (not Unicef Sweden) has a whole social ambassadors program on Facebook. So I’m glad other parts of the organization see the merits of building relationships.
Thanks Katya! It definitely got under my skin! (I hope they take me up on my offer to help them!) 🙂
Everyone else, Katya’s excellent response is here:
http://www.nonprofitmarketingblog.com/comments/my_least_favorite_fundraising_framing_shame
Justin Ware has a great response to this tone deaf campaign too, complete with links to stats showing that social sharing can lead to increased donations:
http://socialphilanthropy.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/attacking-social-media-slacktivists/
Wow. Danny Brown blogged about this a last week!
http://dannybrown.me/2013/04/25/benefits-of-slacktivism/
Great post. All your supporters are valuable and all are potential donors. Your Facebook fans are unlikely to donate if you treat them poorly.
I know! What could UNICEF Sweden be thinking? *sigh*
I am intrigued by the mixed response this campaign is getting. It seems people resonate with the image about FB and polio but most aren’t watching the video shaming ‘likers’ for liking while kids die.
I love the comment by “Gina” over on Katya’s blog post:
“My impression is that many fundraising organisations (especially ‘older’ ones) thought they could manipulate social media tools for their own purposes – place free advertising and collect more donations that way. but this is not how facebook, Twitter & Co. work.”
http://www.nonprofitmarketingblog.com/comments/my_least_favorite_fundraising_framing_shame/
I am thoroughly disappointed with Unicef for this video. Facebook is an effective tool for advocacy and awareness and equally as important to the future of non profit fundraising as any other advertising strategy, or public platform opportunity. Opinions about our donors and their ability to give or not should never be a public commentary.
Well said, Rachel.
I think we all share frustration of donations not coming in the way we’d expected. But we’re never the victim. The minute we become the victim, we lose control of our situation.
We need to realize we have options, like learning to use social media to engage people, not just push at them. Or to learn to ask effectively. Or to pull people together and listen to them tell us how to engage them.
Lots of options. Lashing out shouldn’t be one!
Talk about the classic “no-no” — treating folks as if all you care about is their wallets. Donors are not ATM machines. If we want them to care about us, and give to us, we’ve got to reciprocate. When people take the first step towards engaging with us it’s dumb — and simply rude — to begin calling them names. “Slactivist” is certainly a pejorative. We need to meet people where they are; then interest and inspire them to move along the path (or up the ladder or through the funnel) towards gradually increasing engagement.
Ha! So true.
Have you seen the “I’m not your ATM” image I took? I linked to it here:
https://fundraisingcoach.com/2011/10/11/im-not-your-atm/
Thanks Marc for sharing your response to the ads. I agree: it is a cheap shot at people who don’t engage further with charities.
I thought it stated the obvious, but was the kind of ‘joke’ that might have been appropriate five years ago when Facebook was fairly new to most nonprofits.
But now most of us recognise that it is not as straightforward as that. Of course ‘likes’ don’t buy vaccines – but no-one ever said or suggested they did! ‘Likes’ can be the first micro-step on the path to different types of practical support for a nonprofit, whether by giving money or support. To suggest that such a move is not valuable is rude to supporters, and is poor practice in my view.
Thanks Howard. I agree.
I do think this will be helpful for the rest of us. We can say “Of course we value all supporters. But this UNICEF poster brings up a good point…” 🙂
Here is my post on the same topic – we are in agreement that shaming donors is a harmful, unproductive practice.
http://jcsocialmarketing.com/2013/05/in-defense-of-social-media-slactivism/
Thanks Julia!
I love you’re point #1- engaging supporters is NOT a waste of time!
And I love that you included the script from the poor, emaciated looking child talking about his family dying in the video:
“My mom got sick, but I think everything will be alright. Today UNICEF Sweden has 177,000 likes on Facebook. Maybe they will reach 200,000 by summer.”
Dear Mr Pitman.
I will diverge from your choir of followers here and say that as a new generation of potential donors grow up – all born and raised in a world online – it is not “shameful” to point out to them some of the obvious differences between likes and cash. More importantly, should you ever come to Europe you would also note that in terms of non-profits, the markets there operate very differently from the US: in other words while some of their “messages” may land here, they are not intended for us or our potential donors. I think for example it was UNICEF Europe that had a very successful Santa ad a few years back that made some right-wingers here go nuts. While I am sure your comment will be picked up through various alerts, I’m pretty sure neither UNICEF, nor UNICEF Sweden (look up the difference) will ask you for their help. Don’t wait by the phone…
Sincerely, Brian B.
Thanks Brian! I have taught fundraising around the world and haven’t found shaming to be helpful.
Having said that, the point that “likes” are only one step is good. It’s the video of the poor kid that gets me. And others.
Thanks for the UNICEF/UNICEF Sweden reminder too. I know it’s Sweden but now realize I’m not sure how autonomous each our. UNICEF seems more social media savvy.
As for the phone, I won’t wait by it. But I’d love to brush up on my Swedish! 🙂
Dear Marc,
OK, regardless of market, I suppose it is the aspect of what qualifies as “shameful” where we differ in opinions.
Kind regards,
Brian
UNICEF has some questionable policies and believe they are untouchable. Their video comes more from arrogance than a lack fundraising knowledge.
I’ve since been admonished that it was UNICEF Sweden, not all of UNICEF. Fortunately!
And which policies would this be, Nancy? I seriously doubt that you have any real knowledge about UNICEF’s global work, their governance structures, or their fundraising abilities.