http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/us/18charity.html
login name: let-me-in-again
password: letmein

There are a few assumptions in this article which may, when unpacked, might help explain why people give once and go away.

A development director is quoted as saying, "For one thing, [charities] must have a team dedicated to fine-tuning and improving their web site and another team for e-mail marketing, both of which are added expenses. Nonprofit solicitation materials often get caught in systems that trap spam and other unwanted e-mail. Other systems eliminate the compelling images that are so effective in direct mail."

I would imagine a charity has a team dedicated to their web site in the same sense that they have a team dedicated to coming into the office regularly. A web site is not an online brochure. It is not an extra service and an extra cost. Communicating what a charity is about and what it is currently doing is essential to fundraising, and internet media (web, email, chat, sms, video, etc) are the most efficient, cheap, conversational, and democratic media available.

Sometimes it seems charities invest in communications to get people to donate, but invest little to nothing to thank them for giving; or to tell people what difference their gift has made; or allow people to follow their progress; to tell people what's coming up; to allow people to get involved by volunteering, discussing issues, asking questions, or providing feedback on the latest mail pack, for example.

The concept of donating to charity and then trusting them to spend your money wisely with no further question is no longer enough. It was enough when it was all that was possible, but now the internet allows donors to experience so much more, that to offer them nothing in return for giving appears not just ungrateful but downright rude.

These days, the ideal charity web site seems to be more of a 'glass workshop,' where the goal of the site is to make a charity's processes and work as efficient and transparent as possible. Charites do not do something over here, and then tell people about it here. As much as possible, the doing and the telling are melded together. Potential donors should not have to read descriptions about what the charity does, they should be able to look in the window of the glass workshop and see for themselves. And when donors see something that they can help with, they could even conceivably jump in and help out. (Are you a time donor? Or a money donor? A paid worker or a voluntary worker?)

Maybe donors don't want marketing and fundraising messages. Maybe the best marketing is transparency. In the internet age, a donor can expect to see the project they've donated to, meet the other donors, and hear the voices of the people they've helped. Nothing will get people to give again like hearing someone on the other side of the world confirm that you've helped change their life.

Brad Bell