It is disingenuous to create "urgency" where there is none. That detracts from situations and causes which are truly urgent, and donors will catch on and your cause will lose credibility. Besides, donors who respond to urgent causes do not typically remain loyal long-term donors, which are the bread and butter of a nonprofit with any hope for long-term sustenance. The Red Cross will tell you that the Katriana donors were like that. Acquiring new donors is expensive, renewing donors is profitable.

I agree with all of what has been said here. My personal concern is small nonprofits who have not really been able to tap into the power of the internet for fundraising. I didn't see anything about the results of the America's Giving Challenge and although I blogged about it and developed a widget for my favorite charity after it was up and running I thought of it more as a "charity run" where you get people to participate to support you- its about supporting you not the charity - and they do it one time but the charity hasn't developed a relationship with the donor. In most cases it was a one time gift.

I think of Facebook's Causes as useless because of the garbage on it and lack of organization.

The problem with small nonprofits is building relationships and confidence in their business model. It is like the local coffee shop and Starbucks. The people in the know will go to the local coffee shop but the new customers go to Starbucks unless the local place finds a way to grab their attention in th first place.

I think the Giving Challenge was a good idea to begin to engage now donors but it is not quite yet on the mark. I'd rather see technology innovation grants for small nonprofits and see what they come up with. Maybe some of the nonprofit techies here have ideas but no money.

I'm not convinced that Facebook is the answer, but we shouldn't give up on the Internet yet.

Obama is building relationships on the Internet and getting repeat giving from small donors, but there is a massive effort that goes into it. I get an email everyday - ok I signed up for the list - and it has a new slick way to encourage me to give again everyday. But there is and end to this approach. It is not a sustainable long term model.

Marion
http://marionconwaynonprofitconsultant.blogspot.com/

The whole question of how lasting these nonprofit + donor relationships will be when they have been formed through social networking sites is really interesting to me.

For example, I gave to the winning intl cause in America's Giving Challenge because it was Beth and Michele asking and I have so much personal admiration for them. Honestly, I don't see myself ever giving to Sharing Foundation again. It's a great cause, but it's not one that I'm personally invested in, so if I get solicitations from them directly in the future, I'm fairly certain I won't give. However, if Beth and Michele asked me again, I just might.

All of this reinforces the role of the "superactivist" for me -- and how critical it is that nonprofits identify and cultivate THOSE people, not necessarily everyone who gave.

Thanks for the comment David. You and Jason Z. raise the important point that the amount of response depends on the cause and the sense of urgency.

But I don't think that it's "not about a relationship." Beth points out that it really is all relationship -- but that these social media tools have changed the relationship(s). But it's also out of our hands, when we leverage the networks to do the fundraising for us.

So you are right, David, when you say that it's not necessarily "between an individual and an organization." It's about building the relationships among a network of supporters/advocates, and then building momentum for them to build upon and carry on relationships with others.

So, Amy, what if we change the language from "creating urgency" to "building momentum"? Would that help us, at least semantically, move forward with planning for campaigns using social media tools?

And thank you to Jnet and Chris Adams, who add that it's more than just Obama demonstrating the trend of small donors. Beth Kanter can attest to how small donations have helped her raise over $100k for the Sharing Foundation.

I agree with David completely. I think that with the primaries staying as heated as they have and the framing of the Case Foundation's challenge, we see that cultivating community support with many small donations from many different donors is easier with the sense of urgency. This is also very telling about conversations in the grantmaking community about general operating support and how foundations should/could respond to the needs of nonprofits who can receive fair amounts of funds but none for general operating (just like the Red Cross example).

Is it fair to create urgency in order to get more funders or more dollars? Or, who is to say if the urgency is created or not, or if it is fair or no?

Great post; thanks!

I think that if you want to be successful, you won't be unless you develop relationships - and while that it may not make sense for small amounts - once you leverage the networked effect - it pays off.
http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2008/02/facebook-philan.html

The majority MoveOn donors give on average something like $50. They aren't foundation funded, but receive most of their funds through individuals giving small donations. In fact their last fundraising plea asked folks to give $2.30.

This model can be replicated (albeit on a smaller scale) if combined with smart campaigning. MoveOn uses basic organizing principles and online tools, combined with actually monitoring/testing results and adjusting accordingly.

Honestly Barack Obama has squat for a grass roots campaign compared to one significant individual in the presidential campaign.

The person Im talking about is Ron Paul. The only reason Ron Paul even made it to the presidential race was because of his enormous grass roots online support. Ron Pauls campaign is the only true 100% grass roots campaign.

Ron Paul has set records for donations raised in one day beating John Kerry's previous total of $5 million with over $6 million raised. This was really raised by INDIVIDUAL donors over the course of the day. No other candidate showed a running total of donations and who they were from as well as constantly updating the total and names of contributors.

Ron Paul has done this without any help from the major media outlets who talk endlessly about Obama, Hillary or McCain.

If you really wanted to take a look at a true grassroots effort than look at Ron Paul's campaign.

Can the Obama model be replicated by other organizations?

It's open to every organization with a level of public attention commensurate with a contender for the throne of the empire.

I would argue there is a big difference between an Obama campaign or one of the Case contest groups and an standard annual fund raising campaign.

We also see this in the Red Cross saga after Katrina... which has lead to a fiscal crisis over there. Donors gave to help Katrina victims, God forbid the Red Cross use that money as unrestricted funds.

This new mode of fund raising is about an urgent, immediate idea-- not about a relationship between an organization and an individual. Obama will get money as long as there is urgency.

The sad lesson here might be that nonprofits need to manufacture urgency and issues rather than create long term relationships between organizations and individuals.

Wonder where those unrestricted funds are going to come from.