Archive for the ‘Research Studies’ Category

Jun

2011

02

Category:

Engagement, Research Studies

Tags:

11 Comments

What the Research Says About Increasing Facebook Engagement

This post summarizes some findings from a  recent research report about increasing engagement on Facebook and a couple of conversations about applying the research over on my blog Facebook page.   I also tested some of the tips suggested by the research.    Here’s what I learned:

After Hours Posting

I have been looking at different research studies, like this one “Posting Strategies That Encourage Engagement on Facebook” to see if there were more tactics to try.     The screen grab above suggests that short posts, posts outside of business hours, posts at the end of the week,  and posts that end with a question work best to increase Facebook engagement.

For giggles, I posted after business hours  and noticed an uptick in comments.    In the comments, Debra Askanase pointed to her post that detailed the study’s findings in the research study.   Laura Lee Dooley posted the link to full study.   So, I not only got more comments, but they added a lot of value.

Don’t Automate All Your Facebook Posts

If you’re thinking about using one of those helper apps that lets you pre-schedule posts to Facebook, don’t do it.   Mari Smith explains why in this thread about scheduling apps:

I very occasionally use HootSuite to schedule posts on Facebook. I do 99% of all posts manually as it gets the best EdgeRank score (News Feed visibility).   Facebook gives less weight to posts made via third party apps. They also can get collapsed in the News Feed (e.g. “see xx more posts by Twitter”) and I’m certain people don’t really click that link. :)

PostPlanner seem like really good peeps and a great app; they are in my hopper to take for a test drive. They assure me posts from their app don’t get collapsed in the News Feed… but that could be just because not that many people are using it yet.

Zane Mccolloch-Lussier suggested this post if you want to read more about EdgeRank score.  Mari Smith also has a post here.

Ask Questions

Click for Larger Image

The research also suggests that asking questions works best for increasing engagement.  John Haydon did a pattern analysis of different Facebook Wall posts that were questions  “16 Ways To Get More Comments on Facebook“  that illustrate different examples of questions.   I riffed on the post to brainstorm questions for a fictional Mozart Festival since I was listening to Mozart while writing this post.   Here’s the checklist.

Always Be Commenting

A few weeks ago, I came across a wonderful post by Guy Kawasaki, “How To Use Facebook To Enchant Your Customers” and having testing out some of the tips.     The I love is  “ABC: Always Be Commenting” – that you need to comment quickly, often, and respond to everyone.  Jo Johnson over at the London Symphony is a master of this technique.

Repeat the Proven Stuff

Another tip is to repeat the proven stuff.   I’ve been approaching this as reviewing your metrics, analyzing what scored well and posting similar types of content or at similar times.     The article also suggests that you re-post the same winning Facebook content – that not everyone reads everything that is posted.   I tested this here (June 1) and here (May 12).

What tactics have you tested to increase Facebook engagement?

May

2011

24

Category:

Fundraising, Networks, Organizational Culture, Research Studies

Tags:

8 Comments

Nonprofit Disruption: Evolving Models of Engagement and Support

DISRUPTION: Evolving Models of Engagement and Support

View more documents from Working Wikily

My colleagues at The Monitor Institute  just published a study called “Disruption: Evolving Models of Engagement and Support,” a national study of member-based advocacy organizations. The study was funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.   As they mention on the Working Wikily Blog,  they are releasing the findings of the study in a more dynamic form because they want the organizations and funders to be part of telling this dynamic story.

The traditional form for these type of findings would be a whitepaper. Instead, we are sharing them as slides (original and annotated) that not only conveys what we’ve found but also serves as a tool for sharing and discussing the conclusions with others. We do this not only to stay in the spirit of the participatory engagement styles that are now emerging, but also because the findings represent only the present moment in a story that is far from concluding. Nothing is settled about how even the most relevant and impactful advocacy organizations engage constituencies or attracts resources. We want the organizations themselves and their funders to be a part of its telling.

The research sought to answer a question about member-based advocacy organizations, historically supported by large numbers of loyal, annual donors.  The question:  How are these large organizations making the transition to a connected world?  What are the new models for sustainable advocacy efforts?      The traditional donor profile includes those individuals who write a check for $25 or more – in response to a direct mail solicitation and receive their calendar.     But younger donors, who connect to causes through social networks and their mobile phones are different and perhaps not quite as loyal or even interested in joining established member-based organizations.

In short, the younger generation doesn’t want to be identified as a member and doesn’t see the value.    Younger donors have different demands and the benefits of traditional membership are not enough to attract and enagement them.    Ironically,  the finding is echoed in this comment for the  blog post over at WorkingWikily.

As a 33yr old digital pr gent, I personally don’t see a reason to become a member of any organization, when there’s an opportunity to interact with multiple ones.  Providing super transparency into action on the ground through viscerally engaging media (email/video/photography) while providing opportunities for me to act and also socialize with other like-minded folks, are the attraction and loyalty factors.  I’m keen to believe that’s been the case for a very long time, and not just some emerging generational divide in expectations and behavior.

The study reports that many of these organizations recognize the need to innovate and experiment with  social media, but still rely on direct mail, email, and web sites for fundraising.     Most do not have a replacement strategy for these tried and true methods.  This is troubling given the changing media landscape.

The study shows a maturity of practice in integrating social media into membership and fundraising that is startling.    Half of survey respondents have only just started experimenting with social media in the last two years.    Few nonprofits have really mastered an effective social media practice that is integrated with communications and fundraising.   The study suggests that this is a time of disruption and experimentation and the best way to get through it is to accelerate the experimentation and diffuse the learning from experiments.


The study also revealed that respondents recognized the need for innovation in fundraising and membership but continue to rely on foundation funding.

The study highlights two brief case studies of nonprofits often cited in the interviews for their innovative approaches to integrating social media,  this included Momsrising and Environmental Defense Fund – both have contributed guest posts sharing their practices.

When there is disruption, there is a lot of confusion.     There is a continued need to share best practices about social fundraising that highlight learning and insights with the field.

How are you experimenting and learning about how to integrate social media into your fundraising and membership strategy?   What is keeping your organization back?

Apr

2011

11

Category:

Research Studies

Tags:

5 Comments

Sneak Peak of New Facebook Nonprofit Use Research from Idealware

Note from Beth: For those of you who have been following my blog for a long time,  you know of my obsession with research reports, particularly social media research snippets.   The good folks at Idealware offered me a sneak peak of their new Facebook research – how could I resist?   Charts, graphics, analytics, metrics, and data are like crack to me …

A guest post by Kyle Andrei, Idealware

Who’s seeing success with their Facebook page? In February, Idealware distributed a survey (thorough an informal email outreach) to over 500 nonprofit professionals who were using Facebook at their organizations. Well, the data is back, and we thought we’d share some of our most important findingsósuccess!

Well, specifically, how successful people were in attracting new constituents. We asked survey respondents whether or not they felt they had attracted new constituents (donors, members, volunteers, clients, or event attendees) through their Facebook page. And people did indeed see successful results.

The percentage of respondents who said they they’d seen “a few” or “substantial” new constituents of that type, who also said that attracting that type of constituent was important to them.

Nonprofits felt that Facebook was working best for them in attracting event attendees. Given Facebook’s Events app, this information isn’t terribly surprising. It’s a simple matter to create your event on Facebook, distribute it to your fans, and let them distribute the invitation to their friends.

People didn’t see as much success with new donors and volunteers, though. Why is that? Are Facebook relationships too casual to warrant giving time or money to an organization? Or are potential donors or volunteers not on Facebook in the same numbers?

In addition to constituent impact, we also asked respondents about what we call “measured results,” those goals that don’t directly involve constituents, and can be easily quantified. These included website traffic, donations, email list size, and moving people to action (advocacy actions).

The percentage of respondents who said they they’d seen “some” or “substantial” effect that they would attribute to Facebook. The percentage of “Moved People to Take Action” and “Increased Donations” are out of those organization who said those actions were important to them, while “Increased Website Traffic” and “Increased Donation” are based on all respondents.

Respondents reported the most success with using Facebook to direct new people to their websites, with more than 75% saying they’ve seen an increase in web traffic. With free web analytics tools like Google Analytics, tracking who followed your link from your Facebook page is one of the most measurable goals included in this survey.

And more than 65% said that they’d had some success with moving people to take some form of action for a cause, like signing petitions or other advocacy actions. Online petitions and other political or advocacy actions are easy to do, demand little time, and are easily spread through Facebook and other social media.

Following in suit from the constituent impact, donations saw little success; less than 30% saw success. Surprisingly, respondents didn’t have a huge amount of success with increasing their email lists via Facebook either ñ only 42% saw results. Maybe people aren’t including links or widgets to allow their fans to sign up, or like one person mentioned, fans may prefer to be contacted through Facebook messages and updates, instead of through email.

We’re continuing to analyze the data, and are conducting a series of interviews to round them out. Stay tune for more information and a (free!) research report from Idealware in May.

Kyle is the research intern at Idealware, and a senior at Indiana State University, where he studies Communication. Idealware, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, provides thoroughly researched, impartial and accessible resources about software to help nonprofits make smart software decisions.

Mar

2011

25

Category:

Research Studies

Tags:

10 Comments

Favorite Factoids from the 2011 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

M+R and NTEN have just released the annual 2011 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study that analyzes data and messaging from nonprofits.     So, if you want to compare your nonprofit’s performance with other, this report is a useful tool.

What I liked most was the infographic they shared as a companion to the study.  I had to screen capture my favorite factoids and share those below.

Oct

2010

25

Category:

CSR, Research Studies, Strategy

Tags:

16 Comments

Corporate Altruism: The Blurring of the Lines Between CSR and Cause Marketing

Photo by Vardhana

Note from Beth: Kami Watson Huyse, who is also my business partner at Zoetica, and I are currently Fellows at  Society of New Communication Research.   Our research  started several months ago with a literature search,  is focused on best practices in incorporating a social media strategy into CSR and Cause Marketing programs.

Our focus is on campaigns that had a significant social media component, because we believe that this communication medium is an accelerator  since the failures are often much more spectacular and widely reported.

In our quest we have interviewed, and continue to interview, top brands engaged in social media for social good.  We have also looked at some  failures, and harvested learning about best practices and how they could have been better.

We will publish a number of these stories as  “Conversational” case studies over the next few weeks on both Kami’s blog Communication Overtones and here on Beth’s Blog.   We are sharing our research in the early stages to help identify other case studies we should profile and to get feedback on our working hypothesis.   We recognize that are many diverse opinions on best practices for incorporating social media into cause marketing and CSR, and that is okay.

We hope we can co-create this model with all of you and come out the other side of this research much smarter as a community, and much richer as a society.

Later this week,  we will introduce a framework that we have developed to make sense of what we have learned so far, then we will publish a number of case studies over the next few weeks.

As part of our research, we also presented at the PRSA International Conference in Washington, DC on October 18, 2010, and we will present at the 5th Annual SNCR Research Symposium & Awards Gala in Stanford, Calif. on November 5, 2010.

Corporate Altruism: The Blurring of the Lines Between CSR and Cause Marketing by Kami Watson Huyse and Beth Kanter

Aligning with a cause is a great way for a for-profit company to both raise its profile while doing something good for society at large.  For nonprofits and causes, having the right corporate partner can leverage the impact of the social change work.

Associating a product with a social or environmental cause people care about is a popular marketing tactic with consumers.  More than two in five consumers bought such a product in the past year, according to the “2010 Cone Cause Evolution Study.”   And according to that research 75% donate to a company identified nonprofit, ilustrating that corporate altruism is not only good for the bottom line, but also good for society.

Cause Marketing Gone Bad?

However, the ways that companies and causes have aligned in the marketplace have ranged from the sublime to plain old slimy.   Nonprofits need to consider, should we partner with companies?  If so, how?  And those that choose poorly are subject to being the conduits to green washing, pink washing, and any other kind of washing you can imagine. When the accusations start flying, it can get ugly fast.

Source: Fit Sugar Blog

Take for example, “Buckets for the Cure” fund-raising campaign where Susan G. Komen for the Cure teamed up with KFC (formerly known as Kentucky Fried Chicken).   For each $5 bucket (pink!) of fried chicken, KFC donated 50 cents to Susan G. Komen for the Cure and ultimately $4.2 million was donated (the largest ever breast cancer donation.)     Others wondered whether Komen had read their own educational literature about the connection between high fat diets and breast cancer.

The Differences Between Cause Marketing and CSR

In companies, corporate social responsibility (CSR) departments and corporate foundations have risen up as a substantial field of practice – the good ones come complete with a theory of change or goals to make social change the priority.   Many CSR programs subscribe to the ideas of the triple bottom-line: people, planet and profit.  Meaning that all three must figure in to what the company does to be an authentic and generous corporate citizen.

On the other side, cause marketing has risen up as a way to sell more products, widgets or even ideas, with a non-profit or altruistic element to drive the program.  The bottom line here usually rules the day; however there has been a move toward what we see as more CSR-like elements popping up in cause marketing programs.

The grand debate over CSR vs. cause marketing seems to be getting more blurry.   So much so that the two are often confused and interchanged by those not deeply in the community, and most certainly by public relations departments and marketing. Could it be that it is not a question of either-or, but rather a question of a continuum?  And if so, what are the different points on this continuum and what are the best practices for each?

These are real-world questions that go well beyond philosophy. The genie is out of the bag, companies and nonprofit causes will continue to co-exist.  So, can we put down the weapons and look at how to do it better?

What are some of the best examples of CSR or Cause Marketing programs that use social media?
What are some of the worst examples?

123