As a donor, does it matter whether a charity is registered in my home country?

I was on Facebook when I discovered the option to include a charity within my profile. With my work head on I got excited about the fundraising potential, but when I came to browse through the options, the site's US origins were obvious as I struggled to find British charities (including most of Whitewater's clients).

So I felt an immediate barrier - a mixture of residual web mistrust and a lack of relevance. If I give to the US Leukaemia and Lymphoma Society, will my money actually get there? It doesn't feel the same as giving to the UK equivalent. I'm happy for my commercial web transactions to show up in dollars, but it's somehow more unsettling with a charity donation - it seems such a long way away. And how long would it take for scientific research in the States to eventually benefit someone in my family (the reason the cause matters to me). Two key motivations we are seeing in the sector were magnified in this context: the need to trust and the need for directness, to feel close to those your money is helping.

As I quickly went through this rather unconventional decision process (it's not often you go 'shopping' for a charity), I was inclined to support causes based on three criteria: 1) a presence in the UK 2) a brand name I recognised and 3) Overseas Development because somehow it made more sense – the beneficiaries were always going to be thousands of miles away, regardless of the charity HQ address. Comic Relief was the eventual winner. It ticked all three boxes. And I had already seen it on a friend's profile – peer power.

In fact, the logo now sitting on my page is all about peer to peer. Web 2.0 means international advocacy of causes. In the context of Facebook - a social networking site - this is the primary message and positively encouraged: tell your friends, spread the word, show the world you support us. There's even a counter on your page to tell you how many people you have recruited. It's Member Get Member at its finest. It's also great for brand recognition. And it is truly global.

The internet has given us free rein - the opportunity to support any charity, anywhere in the world if we want to. (In fact, for our empowered generation, this is probably a crafty strategy to dodge a bombardment of paper mail appeals!) But have UK charites fully embraced or even acknowledged their international audience? Have they capitalised on the fact that their organisation is being endorsed and recommended across oceans and time zones? What can they do to alleviate the 'charity begins at home' barrier that I experienced and build on their extended reach? Will it lead us ultimately to a place where the 'Royal', 'National' or 'British'ness of charity brands could become a hindrance elsewhere… or a positive point of difference - a Union Jack worth waving - back home?

Michelle Taylor