In our presentation regarding ‘Harnessing Change’ at the Bridge Conference on Wednesday, Roger and I commented on, among other things, the fundraising pros and cons of social nets.

In some respects, the social nets pose a threat to nonprofits as vehicles for giving and activism, because they are so empowering of direct individual action. And even individuals who might want to act collectively can readily form their own custom-made action and giving networks. Who needs organizations?

I commented that I’ve received more requests to donate to individuals’ fundraising campaigns for this or that cause than I’ve received offers to get rich from Nigerian colonels and accountants!

On the positive side sits this enormous reservoir of individual willingness and potential to do good. From any nonprofit’s standpoint, this is indeed potential to be harnessed or channeled. But that will require the nonprofit to re-prove its relevance to the individual … “We need you, and you need us.”

I didn’t have the opportunity to cite the example of Rachel Beckwith and Charity:Water. Rachel was the nine-year-old who fell short of her goal of raising $300 to help provide water wells in Africa, and then tragically died in a car accident. Her death inspired others to donate $1.2 million over the following year.

Jessica Harrington at Schultz & Williams Direct attended our presentation and sent in a fascinating link from Third Sector in the UK on the subject of giving and social nets.

Third Sector reports on a study that says people with a lot of Facebook  friends are less likely to share information about charities and donate money to good causes.

The author, Kimberley Scharf, an economics professor, argues that when people have larger online social networks, they rely on other people to pass on information about opportunities to give. This phenomenon is called ‘free-riding’. And they might even rely on others to donate, instead of themselves.

Actually, there are many psychology studies on the phenomenon of assuming that others (who are perceived to be equally aware) will deal with a given problem. Most notable is the ‘bystander effect’, much studied after numerous neighbors witnessed the infamous murder of Kitty Genovese, but no one called for or came to help.

I don’t know yet what I think of Dr Scharf’s free-riding theory — and it is just a theory based on quantitative economics (believe me, you won’t want to read this paper!). But she is raising a valid point: giving is not necessarily an individual choice … it would be useful to better understand the group dynamics of social net connections as they affect giving.

Thanks for the tip, Jessica.

Tom Belford