To prepare for some discussions Roger and I will audiotape on social media, online fundraising, and 2010 fundraising strategies, I was browsing through some nonprofit websites. I was struck by the huge differences in web strategy that seemed indicated by the sites I visited.

So I decided to write some posts with my observations on various sites. Not to argue that one or another is better; but to highlight what I believe are some important differences in approach. If you decide to follow my tracks in these posts, you can make your own judgments. I confess I was looking mainly at three things: online fundraising appeals, use of online video (no surprise to regular Agitator readers!), and use of social media.

I’ll start today with the website of Habitat for Humanity, one of the best known and respected brands in the nonprofit arena. Founded in 1976 … spectacular 33 year track record of accomplishment … backed by Jimmy Carter and every other president … terrific direct mail performance over the years …  pre-dating the internet itself!

I began by googling Habitat for Humanity. Got 3,890,000 hits. Impressive. No question: Habitat “owns” its space. I waded through the first five pages of Google hits (studies say most folks don’t go beyond two pages) and found no “intruders.” In fact, in these fifty items one perceives quickly a core asset of Habitat … its extremely robust local affiliates base (there are more than 1,500 of them), many with a website. But what I did not see was any evidence of social media activity.

On to the home page.

Online fundraising appeals – the home page featured a classic Donate button as well as an appeal currently based on Asia/Pacific natural disasters. Click the latter and bounce to a page briefly offering three such disaster recovery efforts to support. Choose one and go to a dedicated Donate page, but one with little reinforcing copy or imagery. Go back and click the home page Donate button … same result … a plain vanilla landing page that captures the pertinent donor information, but with virtually no reinforcement of the ask. Including no video reinforcement … quite disappointing for an organization with some of the most compelling stories imaginable.

Online video – Yes, there is video. A dropdown menu under “Friends and Places” on the Nav bar reveals a Video Gallery. The contents of the Gallery are entirely “corporate” in feel – well-produced PSAs, generic introductions to Habitat, generic thank-you’s, etc. But little that seems spontaneous. Again, a disappointment for an organization that has the ultimate “bricks & mortar” stories that could be produced and told engagingly by grassroots volunteers. Most of these videos had fewer than 2,000 views. One, essentially a music video featuring work on a Habitat project cut to a song by Jennifer Nettles of Sugarland, has had over one million views over two years.

With a bit of snooping, I located a Habitat channel on YouTube, but here also the content was mostly corporate in style. The channel had 148 subscribers and 7,076 views.

In my view, online video is a major missed opportunity for Habitat, which, as I said, has success stories and emotional content other nonprofits would die for.

Social media – use of social media is not featured on the Habitat homepage. However, a dropdown from “Get Involved” on the Nav bar reveals a Social Media option. There, one finds a bit of description of what “social media” are all about in the Habitat context … a useful aid, I suspect, given Habitat’s demographic.

Links are provided to Habitat’s presence on YouTube (as described above), Facebook (20,352 fans), Twitter (2,834 followers), LinkedIn (3,329 members), and Flickr (a current “photo petition” campaign – great idea! – has 156 members who have submitted 1,426 photos). Not a lot happening on these sites; no blogs. Clearly, social media are not a core part of Habitat’s web strategy. More like: “Someone said we needed to be there.”

All in all, given what I understand to be Habitat’s core constituency, their web presence is about what I would expect. Their site delivers the basics … it’s functional, not flashy. Their modest presence on social media is not surprising – you can offer supporters the platforms, but you can’t make them drink.

As noted, I am a bit disappointed that their online appeals are presented in such a pedestrian fashion. As I see it, a lot more punch could be delivered by their online fundraising if more attention were paid to messaging, use of rich media, and design and content of dedicated landing pages for donations.

If I’ve got it wrong, I hope we’ll hear from Habitat.

Next up … Charity: Water

Tom