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.
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.
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: - 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:
