What will happen to the "little old ladies of the future"?

Submitted by johngrain on 29 June, 2008 - 23:21.

I was talking to the very charming and smart Kate Higgins at the IoF Conference in Belfast last week. Kate heads up the FRSB in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we were talking about Baby Boomers, social networking and other such things in terms of engaging with donors and supporters. She sent me this article that she had written recently in response to an article about the march of new technology.

It's so good I wanted to just publish it here in its entirety - with her permission of course. Much food for thought I think.

If social networking is a good way to engage supporters, where does that leave Luddites like me? You see, I don’t do Facebook, MySpace or YouTube; I can’t chat online (a relief to everyone I’m sure given how much I talk the rest of the time); I don’t own an ipod and as you can see, I don’t have a blog.

And that made me wonder why everyone is enamoured of social networking as a way of engaging supporters. For I am your little old lady donor of the future: an ABC female already giving to good causes who is socially aware and active. But one who would rather join a Book Club or socialise with people in the real rather than the virtual world.

To reassure myself that it’s not just me I conducted a very unscientific poll among 20 women friends, all aged between 30 and 45 and with children. Ten responded – 90% of them work full or part time and have a university degree. Over two thirds also have husbands/partners in full time work. When asked about new media/social networking choices, 9 out of the 10 said they shop online and 8 have an MP3 player. All of us text (not quite sure what that says…) But less than half have a Facebook page and only 1 has a MySpace entry or 2 have visited YouTube.

We all buy charity Christmas cards or gifts and put money in collection boxes. 80% have made online donations and are donating regularly by direct debit. None had ever donated by text.

In terms of environmental awareness and smugness we are all right up there, recycling, reducing, reusing; buying local and organic where possible and even using real nappies (our kids will thank us one day).

So how is it that environmental issues have fired our imagination in a way that social networking appears not to? Our zeal has resulted in many of us changing behaviour, moving out of our comfort zones and seeking out new ways of doing things. Yet, we appear to be missing the social networking boat. Why? Perhaps it’s a combination of technological brain freeze and time constraints. Or maybe we just don’t get it or indeed, want to get it.

But where does that leave fundraising? Social networking has immense potential to engage young people in particular and to harness their giving in the very long-term. But what about the medium term? Is there a risk that a generation of givers could be skipped – and given the relative wealth and financial independence enjoyed by women my age, surely that matters. Which fundraisers and charities are paying attention to the fact that the little old ladies of the future are not particularly engaged by social networking? Who is developing methods of giving that suit them and their lifestyles? In short, who is investing now to ensure that their future giving potential is realised?

Who indeed? I think these are wise words and we would all do well to heed them!

Your rating: None

You say offline, I say online...

Thanks John. Kate's absolutely right that many people don't/won't/can't use the newer web-based communication tools and for fundraisers to assume that everyone does or will means that they will miss out on reaching large numbers of donors.

But doesn't Kate's argument apply equally to any channel? For 'social networking' substitute telephone, face to face, online (in the broadest sense, including making payments online), SMS, DRTV, printed appeals (or 'junk mail' in the public's shorthand). You'll find any number of your friends who will say (or have said at some point) that they will not ever give via channel A or B.

Fine. That's why fundraisers and charities have to become adept at using an ever widening range of channels in order to reach potential donors using the medium that they use and feel comfortable with.

Social networking and online are just some of many channels. I'm biased in favour of online, but I think fundraisers have a duty to consider exploring and testing the benefits of social networking sites. With 80 million active users (users who have returned to the site in the last 30 days) on Facebook alone, over eight million of them in the UK, I'd suggest it would be negligent of them not to.

Is it a fad? Communicating with people online isn't, although I have no idea what Facebook et al will look like in five years time, or indeed if it will still exist. But many (not all) people will use tools like those it offers to communicate. And as such these tools will continue to offer good possibilities for fundraising, both by individuals and by charities.

I note that Kate and her friends do shop online, make online credit/debit card donations, and all have a mobile phone. I think that puts them into the Luddite-Lite membership category ;)

I think Kate's comments leave fundraising unchanged. Fundraisers would be daft to think they can rely on one or two channels to reach all donors, but would be equally daft to ignore mass (and rapid) uptake of new channels, even if they don't use them themselves.

User login

New user? Register today for full use of the site. Returning user? Login here:

GLOW STICKS
light up your fundraising

GLOW STICKS
Use Discount Code: PTA001 For 15% Off

Latest jobs

Recent comments

Events

« September 2008 »
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930

Latest events added

Upcoming events

Poll

New books