Australian Government. 2012. Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012. Canberra: Federal Register of Legislation. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00306.
Crittall, Marie and Wendy Scaife. 2015. Educate Plus 2014 Benchmarking Survey. Brisbane, Queensland: The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/82622/.
Gibson, Cynthia. 2015. "Culture is changing: Fundraising nees to change with it." Inside Philanthropy. http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015/4/16/culture-is-changing-fundraising-needs-to-change-with-it.html.
Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. 2010. Giving USA 2010: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2009. 55th Annual Issue ed: Giving USA Foundation in conjunction with the Centre on Philanthropy, Indiana University. http://www.givingusa2010.org/products/GivingUSA_2010_ExecSummary_Print.pdf.
Rhine, Carol and Helen Flannery. 2015. The macroeconomics of fundraising. South Carolina: Blackbaud. https://www.blackbaud.com/files/resources/downloads/04_12_Macroeconomics_of_Fundraising_Whitepaper.pdf.
Rigali, Amanda. 2015. "Is the arts and cultural sector ready for fundraising regulation changes?" Cause4Opinion. http://www.cause4.co.uk/2015/12/is-the-arts-and-cultural-sector-ready-for-fundraising-regulation-changes/.
RMIT. 2015. Rethinking foreign aid: A round table discussion - Proceedings report. Melbourne: Royal Melbourne Institue of Technology. http://mams.rmit.edu.au/slsw0s7rql6lz.pdf.
Scaife, Wendy, Marie Crittall, Alexandra Williamson, Myles McGregor- Lowndes, Parisa Mahyari, Judith Herbst and Katie McDonald. In press. "Cybergenerosity and winds of change: Technology and platforms for giving and volunteering". Brisbane, Queensland: The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology.
Serow, Bethwyn. 2015. "Private sector support for the arts continues to grow." AMPAG. http://www.ampag.com.au/article/private-sector-support-for-the-arts-continues-to-grow-1.
Swindoll, Curt. 2015. "The future of fundraising: Four trends that will reshape the nonprofit landscape." Stanford Social Innovation Review. http://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_future_of_fundraising.
Third Sector. 2015. "Fundraising regulation: 'Things have changed forever'." http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/fundraising-regulation-things-changed-forever/fundraising/article/1369382.
Thompson, Ashley. 2016. "5 Fundraising Resolutions for 2016." npEngage. http://npengage.com/nonprofit-fundraising/5-fundraising-resolutions-for-2016/.
Tobias, Jeffrey and Chris Newton. 2015. Innovation Index of the Australian Not-for-Profit Sector March 2015: GiveEasy and Australia Post. https://www.giveeasy.org/resources/.
Wallace, Sue-Anne. 2009. Managing in a Downturn: A survey of the impact of the economic downturn on Australian nonprofit organisations. CSI Background Paper No. 4: Centre for Social Impact, Pricewaterhouse Coopers and the Fundraising Institute Australia. http://www.csi.edu.au/uploads/31642/ufiles/CSI%20Background%20Paper%20No%204%20-%20Managing%20in%20a%20Downturn.pdf.
Walmsley, Ben. 2015. "Ready for change." Arts Professional. http://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/magazine/article/ready-change.
Wright, Michelle. 2016. "Trends, Statistics & Expertise for Arts and Cultural Fundraisers." Now, New, Next. https://issuu.com/artsfundraising/docs/now__new___next_-_issue__01.
Zappalà, Gianni and Mark Lyons. 2006. "Factors associated with fundraising dependency among nonprofit organisations in Australia." Australian Journal of Social Issues 41 (4): 399-417.
Marie Crittall and Judith Herbst
The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology
The application of various technologies to facilitate giving has sparked particular interest in the nonprofit sector and the media, and is giving rise to innovative approaches. This chapter reviews literature on ‘digital giving’, and what is termed ‘crowdfunding’.
Digital giving
Definitions
With technology use so ingrained in our society it is difficult to believe that much of the technology we use on a day-to-day basis was founded in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. For example the internet only became publicly available in 1991, with Google being founded in 1998, followed by LinkedIn in 2002, MySpace in 2003, Facebook and Gmail in 2004, YouTube in 2005 and Twitter in 2006 (New Media Institute 2014; Internet Society 2012; Edosomwan et al. 2011). Furthermore, as of October 2015, over 700 million iPhones have sold to date—hard to believe when the first one was released in 2007 (Ingraham 2015).
Since 2005 the technological revolution has transformed the way transactions are conducted throughout many aspects of life, from grocery shopping to paying bills.4 It is therefore unsurprising that the way we donate has also shifted away from traditional methods like direct mail to more advanced methods such as mobile giving. Moreover, technology has made us more connected than ever and charities have the opportunity to connect with their supporters more often and more directly. Broadly there are five types of digital giving channels:
email
social media
online (through either the charity’s website, bank’s website, broker’s website)
mobile (app, SMS, mobile-enabled website), and
third party agencies (e.g. crowdfunding and peer-to-peer (P2P) sites).
Email
Email (short for electronic mail) is ‘A system for sending textual messages (with or without attached files) to one or more recipients via a computer network (especially the internet); a message or messages sent using this system’ (Oxford English Dictionary 2001). Email is a popular choice in social marketing as it is fast, inexpensive and easy (Wilson, Hall-Phillips and Djamasbi 2015). Email is the oldest ‘new technology’ for giving, having been around almost as long as the internet itself (Peter 2004).
Social media
There are several definitions on what social media is and several theories regarding the specific types of social media available. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2015) concludes that social media are ‘forms of electronic communication (as Websites for social networking and blogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (as videos)’.
Some definitions distinguish between social media and social networking, with the former used primarily by organisations to broadcast messages, and the latter being used to connect with others (Edosomwan et al. 2011, 83; Saxton and Wang 2014). Charlesworth (2015) further divides social media into four broad categories depending on who controls the content (organisation vs others) and whether the communication is one-way or two-way:
one-way communication with content controlled by the organisation (traditional marketing messages such as websites, images, videos, podcasts etc.)
two-way communication with content controlled by the organisation (blogs and forums initiated by the organisation)
one-way communication with content controlled by others (blogs and forums on other websites), and
two-way communication with content controlled by others (social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube) (Lovejoy and Saxton 2012; Saxton and Wang 2014; Waters et al. 2009).
The first-ever phone call on a handheld mobile phone occurred in 1973 with the first commercially-available phone (the Motorola DynaTAC 8000x) arriving in 1983 (Goodwin 2015). Finland saw the rise of the second generation phones—with SMS ability and data services—in 1993. Today we use third or fourth generation phones (Ray n.d). The first apple iPhone was invented in 2007 and changed the way we think about our phones. When mobile phones were first invented talking was the only feature available. Now we check email, use social media, take photos, browse the internet and send text messages (Ray n.d). Accordingly, the definition of a smartphone has changed over time. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2013), originally a smartphone was defined as ‘any of various telephones enhanced with computer technology’. However, now the definition is ‘a mobile phone capable of running general-purpose computer applications, now typically with a touch-screen interface and internet access’.
One of the major impacts the iPhone brought was around how websites are displayed on mobile phones. Prior to the iPhone mobile websites were dumbed-down versions of their desktop sites. Now, however, they are fully-rendered, colour web pages (Martin 2014). It is this ability to access the internet in an optimised format which has revolutionised consumer behaviour.
Peer-to-peer (P2P) fundraising platforms
P2P fundraising has risen in recent years as a powerful tool for nonprofit organisations (NPOs). It is a method of using your current supporters to fundraise on your behalf using their own networks and relationships (Wu n.d). Types of P2P fundraising include campaigns, personal events or challenges, and other activities such as fun runs and marathons where participants are sponsored by friends, relatives etc. to participate and raise money for a charity (Wu n.d). These events can be initiated by a specific charity (e.g. World’s Greatest Shave, Million Paws Walk), initiated by a community event where multiple charities can receive funds (e.g. fun runs, marathons), or initiated by an individual or group of supporters (again to a specific charity of their choosing).While the concept of sponsoring a friend to participate in a charity event is not new, these platforms have emerged as an efficient way to raise funds through apps, widgets, social media and other mobile technologies (Smith 2015).
There are many different platforms now available for P2P fundraising. While some of these are primarily crowdfunding platforms (e.g. Kickstarter), others offer discounts for NPOs (e.g. CrowdRise, CauseVox, Razoo, Classy, FirstGiving) (Smith 2015; Scaife et al. In press). According to the 2013 Blackbaud P2P fundraising study, since 2011, the 39 organisations that use Blackbaud’s platforms have hosted more than 44,0000 events and raised more than US$1 billion online (Braiterman, DeSchepper and Snyder 2014).
One of the most well-known P2P fundraising platform in Australia is Everyday Hero. Founded in 2007, this for-profit company allows individuals to fundraise on behalf of the 2,618 charities who are registered with them. As of 2016, more than 760,000 people had supported causes through this platform and raised more than A$260 million (Everyday Hero 2015).
Other third party technologies
Third parties refer to tools which are not owned by the nonprofit but enable donations. Often these third parties are for-profit companies but they do not have to be. Some third parties are transaction services, such as Google Wallet or PayPal, while others specialise in helping donors find a charity to support, such as Donate Planet. Still others are involved in crowdfunding or workplace giving.5 Social media technology can also be categorised as third party technologies as they are outside the organisation’s control. Third parties can also be other organisations that support NPOs (Scaife et al. In press).
Share with your friends: |
