Photo courtesy of Scallop Holden.
The mobile giving response to the Haiti earthquake signaled a clear shift in the public's willingness to use their phones as quick donation devices. The number of campaigns, the more than $35 million raised via this method, and the number of people who participated by kicking in $5 or $10 at a time are all impressive and meaningful data points. The ease and immediacy of text donations will surely continue to make it a go-to method for crisis response. But I wonder if it was really all it could have been.
At the time, some wondered if the mobile giving campaigns were a bit of a handicap in disguise because they might give someone the psychological satisfaction of having done their part by donating a quick $5 or $10, when they might have otherwise donated much more online, by mail or in person. It can be argued that it’s simple and small ask might have drawn in many people who might not have given at all.
The work in Haiti is far from done, but with crazy Icelandic volcanoes, a historic healthcare bill and continued concern over the global economy, it’s fading from the headlines already. And the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund, for example, continues to actively raise money for long-term rebuilding efforts. But I wonder how many of the people who contributed text donations during the first few days after the earthquake have even considered giving again. It seems none of the organizations employing mobile giving campaigns have figured out how to promote continued engagement.
I’ll offer myself as an example. I made two donations in the days following the earthquake – one to the Red Cross via text and one online to Partners in Health. Partners in Health has sent me three email updates on what my money has been doing and information about opportunities to continue being a part of the recovery effort. So far, I have received nothing from the Red Cross since the day I confirmed my donation via text – even though the terms and conditions of the donation stated I could receive up to four texts from them per month. I asked around a bit and heard of only one organization, based in Canada, that has done any follow up so far via text.
While I understand the constraints of 160 characters, I’m surprised and disappointed. I hoped we would see creative ways, or at least attempts, to continue engaging this mobile audience who sent $35 million to Haiti. Especially with more than 40 percent of Americans on smart phones, it seems these organizations could have sent a photo, a sentence, a link to their website with the promise of an update for those who click through. Had they done so, they probably could have found some repeat donors and advocates for their organizations and additional help for the people of Haiti. In some cases, the nonprofits may not yet be able to obtain the phone numbers of the people who gave or they may not have decided how to walk the line between maintaining engagement and annoying these donors in the relatively uncharted territory of mobile giving. Either way, I hope nonprofits are able to continue to move this ball forward soon.
With all the capabilities of social media and technology, donors are beginning to feel more and more like empowered consumers and shareholders, who expect follow up. If the thousands of people who donated via text to Haiti aren’t engaged or asked again, they might not send another dollar to Haiti – a country that will need support for some time to come. When another crisis happens and organizations launch mobile giving campaigns in response, I trust that they will still succeed in raising a new record-breaking amount, but I hope to see some additional innovation by these organizations to help mobilize and engage people who want to give more than $10.