Yes, I think in many cases it is a question of money. A lot of nonprofits simply don't have the cash to invest in social media, as minimal as it might be for a small initiative like a Facebook page. After all, people still need to staff the site, generate new content, and respond to peoples' posts and comments. Plus you have to come up with an overall strategy; you don't just create a page and seek Likes. Those who do social media well are definitely leveraging it to serve their ultimate goal -- of supporting the people, animals, or group they were founded to look after.

If data mining is working well for retail amongst other industries do you think it is a cost issue stopping NGO's from turning to a more targeted approach I mean it worked for the Obama campaign to raise funds!

As I've mentioned before, I think Catchafire is a positive example of non-profit using social media in a very imaginative way to promote engagement with causes.

Followers aren't necessarily donors. And donors are where it's at. Most of the money raised comes from previous donors. The ROI on getting new folks signed up may not be as great as one would think. Going after the large spenders has always been the mainstay of charity fund raising. But, the publicity garnered by social media can't hurt if done with little cost.

Social media is not an easy challenge for a nonprofit.  Consider a few things

1. Any online donation means a credit card fee which, right off the bat, means less money spent on the cause and more on overhead.
2. Managing social media means staff, which means either moving them off something else or spending more money - which means more overhead.
3. Most social media attracts folks who already know about you - so if you have spent money preaching to the choir - not raising money from new sources.  Social media favors existing friendships/relationships more than new relationships.

So the challenge for not-for-profits is how to get your existing friends/members/donors to use social media to encouage their friends to join you and donate to you.  

Many not-for-profits measure success by the number of followers - but a more important metric is the number of followers who post, email, tweet about you.  Followers who will take action and extend your reach are valuable.  Folks who click follow and that's it - a dime a dozen (and a dime is probably an overstatement of value). 

I first encountered Twitter as an essential news and information tool for disasters during the San Diego brushfires in 2007. 

I love the idea, Alison, of using gamification to inspire donors to give.  I suspect most non-profits will lag behind PBL initiatives (points, badges, leaderboards), and other gamified strategies, as they have online fundraising campaigns. 

That's so true, @Joanne. I always wonder, too, when I get calendars, notepads, address labels, etc. -- especially from nonprofits that I haven't donated to in a long time. I feel guilty about keeping these items without giving them money (which I'd guess is one rationale behind the mailing), but typically don't add them to my list of supported charities for the year. 

You'd think a blend of social media and gameification would be a great way for nonprofits to attract and retain donors in a less costly manner. Taking a cue from Foursquare, for example, charities could award donors badges for every set dollar amount or hour amount they donate/volunteer. Given peoples' competitive natures, you could set up all sorts of competitions and games to promote friendly rivalries - state vs. state, regions vs. region, town vs. town, etc. I wonder if any charity does this?

During Hurricane Sandy, Second Harvest on Long Island, N.Y., won accolades for its use of Twitter. Rather than just bemoaning the weather, the charity used Twitter to alert followers to the locations of open shelters, places they could find supplies/food/blankets, etc. Just read about it in Newsday (would share link, but it's subscribers only).

Thank you for sharing that link, @Ariella. It's so important to do a little digging before you donate money, time or goods to a charity. A lot of them invest the vast majority of their donations into their cause, be it searching for a cure, helping children, or finding animals homes. But there are many that use far too much money for "administration," which means salaries for their CEOs, presidents, and other staff. While charitable organizations' staffs are certainly entitled to fair pay, the vast majority of funds should definitely go to support the nonprofit's goal.