think we are going to have to agree to disagree on the following!

You’re right that you can be up and running in a few weeks and have the technology in place. However, you miss the fundamental point that social media adds long term value by increasing trust, loyalty and engagement.

You can’t do this overnight. It takes time to earn credibility.

The longer you take to start building these online relationships, the more likely another nonprofit will have beat you to it and so made it much harder for you to get the donor to switch (online) allegiances.

Completely agree with you about the lack of integration though – it’s a major issue and shouldn’t be rocket science to solve.

There are apparent exceptions. Political campaigns are one of them. But even here, the main benefit of social media–in particular, a party or candidate’s website–is as a response device for earned media, candidates’ appearances, and regular campaign advertising.

Where the Internet, in my view, can be most helpful to groups is as a response device for earned media. Indeed, few groups are effectively integrating earned media, traditional advertising and their websites. Too often an organization’s executive director appears on a radio or television program to comment on an issue, and there is nothing on the group’s website to take advantage of the appearance.

There are several providers of social networking applications that utilize the best of that tool to mobilize and energize supporters and get them talking to both the organization and each other. Some leverage FB, Twitter, et al. as well.

Unfortunately, the cost of these tools — $20,000 per year and up — is way out of reach for small and medium nonprofits. Though that may be changing with word that at least one provider is working on a cost effective solution for smaller organizations.

The beauty of social networking is its ability to mobilize and activate people… And that could be why marketers love it when it works since they have instant stats to look at. On the other hand, those stats can be deceiving… our nonprofit uses our Facebook Group to let people know about educational programs. While many people click yes, and more click maybe, few IF ANY of those folks actually attend the class or even respond to follow-up communication. So, the click of a button does not mean instant $$ or bodies in a seat!

Much still to be learned.

The answer is to spend the money on what fits best with your current audience. If you’re a long established nonprofit, with a large, traditional donorbase (I’m thinking elderly, middle class, white, woman) then you will get the best results from using the medium that has always worked best with this group – namely direct mail and i’d spend the money on upgrade/re-activation/phone etc.

On the other hand, if I was an new non-profit who is only active on the web (such as Kiva) then of course i’d be investing much more heavily in social media.

The answer has got to be you spend money depending on what works best for your audience. There are no magic formulas and correct answers.

Direct mail is going nowhere soon, but the next generation of donors will increasingly want (and expect) to be able to connect, interact and engage with their favourite nonprofit through social media.

Those charities who aren’t doing this will find it hard to play catch up and risk losing it out to more tech savvy newcomers.

Social media certainly isn’t ‘snake-oil’ but it isn’t a panacea either.