9 Reasons To Quit Social Media
The other day during our presentation to the Bridge Conference, Roger chided me for writing as much as I do about social media. His point: this is a fundraising blog, after all, so let’s ‘follow the money’ and talk about direct mail and a bit of email fundraising.
Today I’m writing about social media again, but maybe Roger will forgive me for this one. I’m just passing along 9 Reasons to Quit Social Media Now … reasons suggested by Erik Sass, who reports on MediaPost’s social media blog!
Writes Sass: “Enough is enough: I think it’s time to speak up for people who don’t use, or who severely limit their usage, of social media — including myself (I know, it’s funny: a social media blogger who doesn’t like social media). We’re not psychopaths, we may be highly employable, and we have good reasons for not using social media. In our defense, here are nine reasons to rethink your own relationship with social media.”
Erik’s 9 reasons to quit now (each is nicely elaborated in his article) …
- It’s a waste of time.
- It’s addictive and unhealthy.
Did you know there’s a Facebook Addiction Scale? Take the test*. - It encourages envy/narcissism.
- It takes you away from the real world.
- It encourages superficial relationships.
- Privacy concerns/unethical business practices.
- It can be personally and professionally dangerous.
Says Sass: “Essentially, the individual user must be 100% sure that he or she has the discipline to neverpost something that is offensive or incriminating — even, say, when they’re drunk or extremely upset or under a lot of stress. That is frankly setting the bar really high for ourselves.” - It’s expected.
Says Sass: “…it’s disturbing to think that employers are already looking askance at people just because they don’t have social media profiles.” - It’s only going to get worse!
Who wants to rebut?
Tom
*Now, more importantly, substitute the words ‘The Agitator’ for ‘Facebook’ and re-take the test. Are you an Agitator addict?
12 responses to “9 Reasons To Quit Social Media”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
Hi Tom – no mention of the phone (or ‘voice to voice’ if you prefer!) when you say ‘follow the money’? For shame! Even when you had a post a few weeks back showing how it still gets better response than both DM and email? If we’re really following the money shouldn’t we be talking integration, rather than just channel by channel?
Fair comment, Adrian. You’re absolutely right.
Yes it can be about showing off but no more than the chatter by the proverbial watercooler or down the pub. If someone talked about your appeal in those situations and results were uplifted from word of mouth wouldn’t that be positive? That’s what social media is at it’s heart and it allows you to track who says it and who they talk to quickly – we mine our offline data in similar ways. It’s invaluable in driving traffic to landing pages which make it easier to donate, and ensuring we make life as easy as possible for donors. Making it work with DM and, as Adrian says, integration is key; not viewing it as the be all and end all. I agree with noting it’s pitfalls, such as trolling by writing provocative pieces to garner response, but as this article proves it does work!
And how many of these apply to a nonprofit organization’s use of social media?
Quite a few in my estimation.
I love The Agitator.
But with all due respect, this post comes very close to self-parody. Yes, you’re a couple of cranky old farts. Yes, you remember the good old days when everyone smoked cigarettes at their desk, drank highballs during meetings, and sure as hell didn’t mess around with … *scoff* … Facebook or Twitter.
We get it.
But the reality is this is not Don Draper’s market. The segment of donors who are not on social media is rapidly shrinking — even among those in your decrepit generation. So while Facebook may not be — and may never be — a significant DIRECT RESPONSE channel, it certainly is a BRANDING channel, since it provides organizations great opportunities to sell their mission, create brand affinity, and encourage word-of-mouth awareness. Last I checked, those are all essential elements of good fundraising. Old-school direct responsers love to boast that they only invest in positive-ROI channels. Good for them. But it’s not 1985 anymore. In 2012, great direct response work is contingent on great branding work. Consumers are more skeptical, less loyal, and require more “touch points” before they give. Social media provides opportunities for those touch points. (And at a very reasonable price, I might add.) So whether you or I like social media is irrelevant. We go where the donor goes. Simple as that.
Please, by all means go on with your cranky selves. The Agitator is the first email I read every day when I arrive at work. Your insights are appreciated. But, I implore you: more time on fundraising, less time chasing kids off your lawn.
Hey guys, just wanted to let you know after taking the test I am not an Agitator addict! But still a loyal fan . . .
I’m over 70 & more retired now, but am considered a “techie senior”
FaceBook is leveling off (actually down slightly in the U.S.) and some new sites such as Google+ are climbing rapidly. Women are flocking to Pinterest at the expense of spending more time on FB.
I hear many NPO leaders say they are unable to keep up with so many. As Agitator once wrote, we are in a multi-channel communications world and single channel is dead. One has to evaluate the results based on what you consider important. Measure outcomes and monitor results is key.
7 reasons to quit direct mail:
1. It is expensive.
2. People already get too much mail.
3. It is not communal at all.
4. It hurts the environment.
5. It is not shareable or scalable.
6. Response rates are declining.
7. And it’s only getting worse!
Now I actually don’t believe all those things and even though I work for a digital agency we are constantly talking up the values of integration and not forgetting about direct mail and direct response. The list just shows how, if you wanted to, you could take a very negative view and pick on all the downsides.
In social media’s case, some of the downsides, like it being addicting, can be quite positive for nonprofits. Imagine a donor sitting by the door waiting for that next appeal… just because we haven’t figured out how to make the most of social media doesn’t mean you should just quit it.
Anyways… great post (as always) and great discussion. Keep it up!
9 Reasons to Stop Reading the Agitator
Well, I can’t really think of a single one! I think this is a great post that will agitate many and probably prompt some terrific discussion. And I agree that there are many addicts who do probably waste enormous amounts of time on social media, are anti-social, and are truly guilty of much of the worst of what you you tick off above.on your list.
But there’s also an entire generation of sincere, smart, passionate young (and not-so-young) people who are there. That’s their world. Like it or not, this is how we connect with them. The good news is that there are social media tools and techniques that help us reach the ones we want to reach, and inch-by-inch helping us to raise some money. Dare I even say those three grand letter: ROI?
Personally, I despise Facebook. I happen to love Twitter and Google+. But it doesn’t really matter what I like. I’m on all three (and Pinterest now too) every day. Just like I was on the Internet 15 years ago when no one over 65+ could spell it.
Social media is where the world is going, and I want to be there too to greet a new generation of big-hearted donors.
@HarryLynch 🙂
P.S. Jay Love owes me a phone call!
I’m always pleased when I see someone question the super hype about social media. Yes, of course, social media has its value. But I think the excessive hype with social media is getting boring and also worrisome. Thanks, Eric, for asking if the emperor has all his clothes on. Thanks, Tom and Roger, for sharing what Eric said.
My e-news of May 2012 (archived on my website, http://www.simonejoyaux.com) focuses on social media…and my concerns about the hype. And I cite all kinds of books and articles. I urge people to read Jaron Lanier’s book YOU ARE NOT A GADGET. Lanier is the father of virtual reality. Read Sherry Turkle’s book ALONE TOGETHER. She’s a social scientist at MIT.
Then find the balance.
Funny how this post and the article it refers to are not about nonprofit marketing via social media, but about the personal downsides of social media — yet the Social Media Echo Chamber takes it as an attack on their favorite medium. It’s two different and unrelated questions.
Hey, it’s just like social media! People arguing without listening to each other!
Jeff B. has a great point. For nonprofits, one of the most important things the original “9 Reasons” article reveals is why some (maybe many) of your donors will never be on social media… so if you want to reach ’em, you have to be where THEY are, not where you want them to be.