The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, qut
Download 4.28 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Key issues, latest research and emerging trends
- What fresh questions or subquestions have emerged
- Theories, definitions and data-sets
Australian contextResearch into these new technologies in the charitable sector is scarce in Australia. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), in 2012–13, 83% of Australians 15 years and over had accessed the internet in the previous 12 months. While this is nearly at 100% for Australians up to 45 years of age, only 46% of people 65 or over accessed the internet. Furthermore, 76% of internet users purchased or ordered goods or services online (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2014b). The age groups least likely to have purchased or ordered goods or services online were those 15–17 years and those 65 years and older, with the primary reason being ‘has no need’. Interestingly, 18.6% of internet traffic comes via a mobile phone and 11.4% via a tablet (Webcertain 2014), similar to other countries. In 2013 some 65% of Australians 16 years and older owned a smartphone (an increase from 37% in 2011) and, of these, 78% had researched a product or service on their device and 41% had made a purchase on their phone (IpsosMediaCT 2013). A total of 86% of smartphone users communicate via email or a social network, 61% read news or review website blogs or message boards and 91% either browse the internet, play games, listen to music or watch a video (e.g. on YouTube) on their smartphone. A total of 77% of Australian smartphone owners who use the internet on the device access their email on their smartphone (IpsosMediaCT 2013). While text donations have been available overseas for some time a trial is currently under way to introduce it to Australia through the Telco Together Foundation. The GiveEasy platform is already available, where donors text the amount they would like to give and receive a website link in reply to complete the donation (Scaife et al. In press). Australian NPOs are connected via social media, but not to the same extent as charities overseas. For example, 88% of UK NPOs are estimated to have a Facebook page (Blackbaud 2014a) compared to just 31% of Australian NPOs (Wirth Consulting 2012). Email communication is generally poor, with 64% of Australian NPOs not sending a welcome email to new subscribers. Mobile optimisation is also a significant issue, with 79% of organisations not sending mobile-optimised emails and 70% of websites also not optimised for mobile devices (Dunham+Company 2014). A survey of 603 Australian NPOs revealed that only 11% can receive donations from their website which is primarily used to communicate and present information. Furthermore, improving the website was listed as a priority by 58% of respondents (Infoxchange, Connecting Up and Techsoup NZ 2015). Key issues, latest research and emerging trendsWith all aspects of life going online and technology constantly evolving, people expect charities to adopt new technologies almost immediately. Individuals expect the process of donating to be quick, easy, convenient, engaging and personal (Scaife et al. In press). Many charities may have these technologies in place, but unless they are used and updated often they may fall by the wayside and potentially turn off supporters (Waters et al. 2009). In terms of Twitter, NPOs are primarily using it as a one-way communication tool and failing to connect to others by replying to Twitter users and retweeting messages (Lovejoy, Waters and Saxton 2012). Perhaps not surprisingly, lack of time and resources are the most frequently cited barriers to using social media (Briones et al. 2011), followed by getting the board onside to try new technologies. Some have speculated that this was due to the general age of board members being from older generations and not necessarily being familiar with these technologies (Briones et al. 2011). Furthermore, the lack of strong evidence that social media brings donations, and the still relatively small share of donations that come via the internet may be a turn-off (MacLaughlin 2015). Having a tech-savvy board member may help bridge this gap and allow new technologies to be used to their full potential. While for some mobile consumers there are barriers such as credit card security, interrupted online access, small screen size and insufficient information (IpsosMediaCT 2013), there are a growing number of individuals who donate via their mobile phones (ProBono 2013). It is therefore imperative for a nonprofit’san NPO’s survival that their website is compatible with mobile devices. The website itself is essential to an organisation’s survival. In Canada 41% of all donors and 90% of major donors visit the charity’s website before making their first gift (Good Works 2014). It is therefore vital that the website is accurate, informative, interesting and easy to follow. Younger donors in particular are more likely to review a charity’s website prior to making a donation, with as many as 91% of high-net-worth donors 21–40 years examining the charity’s website before making a donation (Johnson Center for Philanthropy and 21/64 2013).
Given the obvious need for mobile-optimised formats of websites and emails it would be interesting to ask the NPOs whether their website is optimised and the number of donations received via a mobile technology (smartphone or tablet). It would also be of interest to know whether Australians had given up donating via a smartphone or tablet due to the website not being mobile-friendly. Given that SMS donation is not yet widely available in Australia it may also be worthwhile to investigate the demand for the technology before it is rolled out following the premium SMS trial by the Telco Together Foundation. It would also be interesting to have a better understanding of the pathways for digital giving and volunteering; that is, which are the best mechanisms for community engagement, recruitment and retention of e-donors and e-volunteers? Crowdfunding
Crowdfunding tends to draw monies for technology, entertainment and artistic projects. It is differentiated from other fundraising vehicles as project creators aim to acquire numerous small donations from project supporters instead of seeking a larger sum from one or several sources. People will engage on particular crowdfunding platforms that handle the associated financial transactions of running a campaign (Ashton, Heenatigala and Russo 2014). Crowdfunding projects can be classified into four different types (Kshetri 2015): donation-driven initiatives which strictly operate to collect charity; lending projects, which typically involve financing relatively smaller amounts for struggling entrepreneurs; equity investing, which is a form of microfinance; and reward-based crowdfunding, which adds the promise to recompense donors with a gift when the project or financing is realised. Although crowdfunding is rapidly diffusing across the globe, surprisingly there is scant literature to explain its fundraising nature (Kshetri 2015). One newly-proposed theory describes how formal and informal institutions affect crowdfunding success by mediating relationships among participants. When institutions provide regulations, subconscious rules, customs and norms make the environment more conducive to crowdfunding this can positively reinforce its effectiveness. Implications are that entrepreneurs can predict the likelihood of raising funds depending on the types of institutions operating within the economy. However, this theory requires empirical testing for support. Of the existing data-sets on user profiles used to extrapolate theories presented in studies to date the majority of researchers have preferred to focus on Kickstarter due to its high profile and propulsion of projects since its inception. Figure 16.2 conveys this rate of growth. 
Figure 16.2 Number of crowdfunded projects on Kickstarter from 2009-2014 statistics (as cited in Chung 2015) Figure 16.2 shows the rate of growth of Kickstarter projects, commencing in April 2009 with less than 1000 projects, growing to approximately 1000 projects in mid 2010, increasing again to approximately 2000 projects at the end of 2011, and peaking at over 9000 projects in mid 2014. The chart finishes at August 2014. Of greater interest are statistics on the creators’ success versus failure percentages as projects skyrocketed on Kickstarter as shown in Table 16.1. It is apparent that the success rate dropped in indirect proportion to the boost in creators who joined the platform and launched projects over the years. This may be attributable to creators floating projects without having sufficient experience and preparation (Chung 2015). Table 16.1 Kickstarter statistics on their projects, creators and visitors (adapted from Chung 2015)
Table 16.1 gives some statistics from the Kickstarter platform about their projects undertaken broadly classified in terms of project success or failure. 46% of projects succeeded and 54% of projects failed. There were 69,448 successful projects and 82,160 failed projects, totaling 151,608. Successful projects lasted on average 33.21 days, failed projects 36.2 days, with a total projects average of 34.83. The average successful project goal in US$ was $8,364.34, and the average failed project goal in US$ was $35,201.89, with a total project average of $22,891.15. Final money pledged to successful projects averaged $16,027.96 and only $1,454.18 to failed projects, with a total project average of $8,139.37. Successful projects used on average 4.63 images and failed projects averaged 3.37 images, with a total project average of 3.95; successful projects averaged 1.18 videos, failed projects 0.93 videos, a total of 1.04 videos on average. Successful projects offered 0.84 average Frequently Asked Questions, 9.69 rewards and 9.59 updates on average. Failed projects had less, with an average of 0.39 Frequently Asked Questions, 7.49 rewards and 1.59 updates. The average across all projects was 0.6 Frequently Asked Questions, 8.5 rewards and 5.26 updates. Successful projects had an average of 77.52 project comments, while failed projects had 1.59. The total average was 5.26. Connection to Facebook was 61% for successful projects and 59% for failed projects. The average across all projects was 60%. Successful projects had an average of 58.3.48 Facebook friends to the 395.15 average of failured projects, and the total average of 481.54. Successful projects had 211.16 backers on average, compared with 19.34 of failed projects and the total average of 107.33. Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2016 2016 -> 2017 afoCo Landmark Scholarship Program 2016 -> Instructions for the Preparation of Camera-Ready Contributions to the Conference Proceedings 2016 -> Step student Scholarships for Year 10-13 2016 -> The united church of canada 2016 -> Idan raichel biography – May 2016 Brief Producer, keyboardist, Lyricist, composer and Performer Idan Raichel 2016 -> An introduction to centre’s interventions expanding access to justice 2016 -> Sanchar Shakti 2016 -> Unit analysis should help here. We want number of bananas 2016 -> The Autobiography of Elder Joseph Bates 2016 -> The Great Heat and the Rhode Island Deep Water Bay Scallop (Argopecten irradians) Fishery 1875-1905 Download 4.28 Mb. Share with your friends:
|