UPDATE 09/08/10:
Full report now available here.
UPDATE 09/03/10:
I have updated this to include actual grades for each of the top 100 charity brands - you will find these grades at the end of the post, as well as some additional examples of the "A+" charities. I hate to give a charity a bad grade, but the reality of the situation is that many are under-utilizing social media.
Original Post:
I was happy to find Cherita Smith's recent post, Adventures in Nonprofit Email Marketing, where Cherita conducted an experiment on how well the Core Nonprofit Power Brand 100 did at responding to email subscriptions, encouraging such subscriptions and harnessing the power of email lists. (@cheritatweets / blog / post)
She uncovered some interesting findings and it piqued my interest regarding the list relative to one of the 8 Common Social Media Mistakes I had posted last month:
2) Making it hard to find your social presence on your websites.So, as a companion piece to Cherita's, I did some research on the same 100 charities to analyze how well they promoted social media via their respective websites. A few notes:
When someone visits one of your primary landing pages (home page, event page, information page, etc.), it should be easy to see the social media links - using icons - without having to dig and find them. I have seen various NPOs who do not have a link to any of their social media accounts anywhere on their website. Use the icons because people's eyes are trained to notice the Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, etc. icons, but may quickly look past the words "Twitter" or "Facebook" if mixed in with other links.
- I tracked the three "main" platforms: Twitter, Facebook, & YouTube
- I saw examples of LinkedIn, Friendster, Flickr (probably the 4th most common), MySpace & Vimeo, but not a significant enough number to track.
- I also made note of whether or not links to the org's blog(s) were included.
- I refused to dig for the links on secondary pages - If I can't find your link to your blog and social media accounts on your main page, you aren't doing a good job of promoting them.
- For some reason, Core excluded colleges & universities from the study. The only reason I can fathom is that it would have significantly increased the work required to produce the report. Higher education historically has some of the most powerful brand recognition in the country (Harvard, Stanford, Florida, Texas... just to name a few). One argument for not including these institutions could be that the Florida Gators, Texas Longhorns, etc. gain from athletic prowess, but I don't think the Harvard crew team is doing much for Harvard's brand recognition. I digress...
Here are the findings. Of the 100 charities:
- 41% had a Twitter logo on the landing page, visible without scrolling down the page.
- 26% had a Twitter logo on the landing page, visible after scrolling down the page.
- 2% had current tweets visible on the page (without an app)
- 5% had current tweets visible via an app.
- 4% had the word "Twitter" listed as a link, without a logo.
- 30% had no mention of Twitter
- 42% had a Facebook logo on the landing page, visible without scrolling down the page.
- 27% had a Facebook logo on the landing page, visible after scrolling down the page.
- 5% had a Facebook app on the page.
- 4% had the word "Facebook" listed as a link, without a logo.
- 27% had no mention of Facebook
- 31% had a YouTube logo on the landing page, visible without scrolling down the page.
- 19% had a YouTube logo on the landing page, visible after scrolling down the page.
- 14% had a YouTube video embedded on the page.
- 2% had the word "YouTube" listed as a link, without a logo.
- 46% had no mention of YouTube
- 47% had a link to their blog
- 53% did not have a link to their blog
* Note: In the Twitter, Facebook & YouTube categories, totals add to more than 100% because some orgs had logos with and without scrolling, had links and embedded videos or apps, etc.
I have to say that the overall findings are a bit disheartening. Particularly these:
- 30% had no mention of Twitter
- 27% had no mention of Facebook
- 46% had no mention of YouTube
- 53% did not have a link to their blog
Plus this one:
- 17% had no social media listing whatsoever, including 2 of the top 10 and 5 of the top 20.
While there are exceptions to every rule, it is difficult not to view these as missed opportunities for the "top 100 branded charities." What does this say about the Not-Top-100?
As Cherita did, though... I look to end on a positive note. Here are some positive examples from the list:
The International Rescue Commission (which also made the "nice" list for Cherita) has a nice landing page. Links at the top to YouTube, Twitter & Facebook (could be a little larger, in my opinion) and a great embedded YouTube video:
Mercy Corps Great Facebook, Twitter, mobile & email subscription links that pop as soon as you land on the page. Also includes a Twitter app below the fold and a nice social app listing recent donations:
Thoughts? Any other non-profits not on the list that you think have great social media presence on their website?
UPDATE: Agree w/ Cherita below... here's World Wildlife Fund:
Handing out the grades
These grades were attained by scoring each of the characteristics noted above, applying the "C" grade to the average score and distributing grades from that point.
A look at the two A+ charities, both are great... though the URM page may be my favorite because of the "notifications" on the icons - as in the Twitter example below. If you click on the Twitter icon, the four URM accounts are shown:
A
The Salvation Army
Food for the Poor
International Rescue Committee
Natural Resources Defense Council
American Nicaraguan Foundation
Environmental Defense Fund
World Wildlife Fund
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
Muscular Dystrophy Association
Mercy Corps
A-
United Way of America
American Red Cross
Goodwill Industries
Girl Scouts of the USA
Volunteers of America
CARE USA
March of Dimes Foundation
Project HOPE
National Audubon Society
Teach for America
Heifer Project International
Cross International Aid
Oxfam America
B+
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
B
The Arc of the United States
Boys & Girls Clubs of America
Boy Scouts of America
Shriners Hospitals for Children
Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation
Make-A-Wish Foundation of America
Academy for Educational Development
MAP International
Direct Relief International
Special Olympics
Combined Jewish Philanthropies
Covenant House
Local Initiatives Support Corporation
B-
Save the Children Federation
Ducks Unlimited
Arthritis Foundation
American SPCA
Medical Teams International
International Aid Inc.
Easter Seals
C+
Alzheimer's Association
Children's Hunger Fund
International Medical Corps
C
Habitat for Humanity International
Feed the Children
American Diabetes Association
American Kidney Fund
Paralyzed Veterans of America
National Kidney Foundation
JA Worldwide
Camp Fire USA
C-
The Nature Conservancy
The Trust for Public Land
The Humane Society of the United States
D
World Vision
Gifts in Kind International
PATH
Gleaning for the World
YWCA USA
Hope for the City
Operation Smile
F
World Emergency Relief
Project Orbis International
Catholic Charities USA
The Conservation Fund
Mental Health America
Heart to Heart International
Samaritan's Purse
Doctors Without Borders
Feeding America
United States Fund for UNICEF
The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society
Institute of International Education
Conservation International Foundation
Children's Network International
National Wildlife Federation
United Cerebral Palsy Association
YMCA of the USA
American Cancer Society
American Heart Association
Planned Parenthood Federation
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
AmeriCares
City of Hope
Compassion International
National Multiple Sclerosis Society
Wildlife Conservation Society
Marine Toys for Tots Foundation
The Rotary Foundation
National Cancer Coalition
Children International
Adventist Development and Relief Agency
American Lung Association
Girls Inc.
6 comments:
I would add World Wildlife Fund to the "nice" list -- they do a great job with promoting their social media presence. They include it at the top on their website (they also use small icons, but with the placement where it is, I think it's ok because the eye naturally wants to look right there), they include it on the landing page after sign-up and their profiles are promoted in their enewsletter.
Of the 50 organizations I looked into (didn't make it through all 100 -- but I plan to!), I think WWF is doing the best comprehensive job when it comes to social media & online (although, I haven't checked out how responsive and engaged they are...).
I like this a lot -- thanks!
Agreed Cherita... edited to include WWF.
Can you tell us why you graded us (The Humane Society of the United States) a C- ?
Great work Devin! It's interesting that a lot of the organizations you gave a really low grade to are organizations I would probably give a similar grade to for their email programs as well. Although, FWIW, St. Jude does promote their social media profiles in their email.
Now I want to go through the remaining 50 email lists so I can score them too -- we should combine scores and come up with a comprehensive grade for how these nonprofits are doing online!
Hi Carie - HSUS has historically had great social media, etc. efforts and I applaud you for them! The grade is not intended to be "degrading" but rather an illustration of how well social media is promoted on your home page in comparison to the other 99 organizations. In the case of HSUS, Facebook & Twitter links are "below the fold" (having to scroll down), which garners fewer points than if they were "above the fold" and there is an absence of a YouTube presence. Not having YouTube may be perfectly okay with you and/or HSUS, but it lowered the score for this research project. A full report, including scoring methodology is being reviewed by editors as I type... so it should be posted soon for your review. I hope that makes sense!
Cherita - Amen! In the aforementioned report, I am careful to note that this is not an overall grade of the organizations or their respective social media / email efforts... rather just a report on how well they use prime real estate - the home page - to promote such engagement.
Your charity has been selected to be a partner in our web site, we will be receiving a lot of money to give to charities. Our web site is in partnership with FedEx to offer discount shipping with a portion of each package going to charity.
Visit our web site at www.joeshipping.com
Post a Comment