105
Branston, K., & Bush, L. (2010). The nature of online social good networks and their impact on non-profit
organisations and users. PRism 7(2): http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
2
was further examined in a report that explored
the valuable functions of the Internet for non-
profit organisations (Hart, 2002). Hart argued
that non-profits can not only use the Internet
as a tool to raise money, but also as a channel
to create and improve essential relationships
with current and prospective supporters. A
later study outlined some of the differences
between “traditional charity” and e-
philanthropy,
claiming
that
online
philanthropy is more expansive, focused, and
personalised than traditional means of giving
(Jillbert, 2003).
Two of the most highly regarded studies
about online philanthropy trends come from
the same source: the W.K. Kellogg
Foundation. Published in 2000, the first report
described and classified 140 websites related
to philanthropy, volunteering, and social
change-making (Reis & Clohesy, 2000). The
report outlined the major challenges and
opportunities related to e-philanthropy at the
time, but it did not make conclusions based
on the categorisation of the sites.
A year later, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation
published a second work in which researchers
Reis and Clohesy (2001) noted the dramatic
increase in the number of sites related to e-
philanthropy and the increasing attention
surrounding the trend. Through a content
analysis, sites in the second study were
categorised into three ‘domains of action’ –
giving time and money, knowledge and
capacity building, and direct online services.
A survey of non-profit organisations also
revealed an increasing number of
organisations using the Internet, with non-
profits reporting more success in recruiting
volunteers than soliciting donations. Major
challenges included the need for more
guidance to help organisations navigate
online services, the financial and time
requirements needed to fully capitalise on the
services, and the need to continually
democratise the online space as it relates to e-
philanthropy.
Another study analysed the impact of the
Internet on volunteering. Based on the results
of a user study from one such site, results
showed that the Internet plays a critical role
in helping non-profits link up with volunteers
who they would not otherwise be able to find
(O’Rourke & Baldwin, 2004). Users reported
overall satisfaction with the online volunteering
process, indicating they were more likely to
volunteer and find a satisfying opportunity.
Several publications on e-philanthropy
trends focus on the particular demographic of
youth. One report broke down the online civic
engagement of youth into 10 categories,
including volunteering, philanthropy, and
activism (Montgomery, Gottlieb-Robles, &
Larson, 2004). Another recent study also
examined youth online civic engagement, using
the site TakingITGlobal.org as its focal point
(Raynes-Goldie & Walker, 2008). The authors
noted several additions to the toolbox of online
civic engagement, including blogs, discussion
forums, instant messaging, and social
networking.
Non-profit organisations’ use of the Internet
The literature concerning non-profits use of the
Internet focuses on the extent to which non-
profits are using the medium to its full
potential. In studying how non-profits use
relationship-building functions on their
websites, Taylor, Kent, and White (2001) found
that although non-profit sites were effective in
terms of ease of interface and information
dispersal, the sites did not promote user
interactions and return visits, and were thus not
meeting the relationship-building potential of
online tools. Likewise, in a content analysis of
non-profits’ websites, Waters (2007) found that
organisations mainly use the medium for
information dispersal rather than for interactive
exchanges with online audiences. Waters
suggested that by incorporating interactive
communication features into their online
presence, non-profits could make e-
philanthropy a more significant share of their
revenues.
Two years later, Waters, Burnett, Lamm,
and Lucas (2009) conducted another content
analysis, this time examining how non-profits
use profiles on Facebook to advance their
organisational missions. The results showed
that the majority of non-profits have not
incorporated the wealth of useful applications
100
Branston, K., & Bush, L. (2010). The nature of online social good networks and their impact on non-profit
organisations and users. PRism 7(2): http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
3
available to them on Facebook. While
organisations most often presented content
related to disclosure on their profile pages,
they largely neglected the components of
involvement and information dissemination.
Two more significant studies also
conducted content analyses of non-profits’
websites (Kang & Norton, 2004; Yeon, Choi,
& Kiousis, 2005). Yeon et al. found that
donor-related online material on the sites is
more prominent and more interactive than
volunteer and media materials. In addition,
the study found that fewer than 10% of the
sites utilise interactive features. Hart (2002)
also looked at how non-profits use the
Internet, with an emphasis on donor relations
and online philanthropy. He pointed out how
the Internet has made e-philanthropy viable,
but that the biggest impact can be made when
organisations use the Internet to build
relationships with donors instead of just
soliciting money.
Users’ involvement with e-philanthropy
In examining giving trends among the online
community, one study surveyed 426 social-
media-savvy individuals to better understand
the potential for soliciting donations via
social media (Livingston, Diaz, & Kanter,
2009). While respondents proved to be
younger than the traditional donor audience,
the results showed that these donors did not
generate high dollar donations for
organisations. Conversely, the over-50
respondents reported greater levels of online
contributions. The study also found that a
considerable number of respondents prefer
social networks as a method of contact with
non-profit organisations, and concluded that
social media platforms present non-profit
organisations with opportunities to engage
both younger and older audiences in
conversations that could lead to donations.
Much of the recent discussion about social
good networks comes from mainstream media
sources. An article from the Chicago Tribune
asserted that the value in social networking
for non-profits is not necessarily in
considerable donations, but in increased
interaction and deeper engagement with the
public (Wong, 2008). Citing examples from
non-profit representatives, the article discussed
how organisations are being forced to rethink
their approach to fundraising on the Internet
based on the actions of users. Another article
argued that Generation Y has an inclination for
activism that goes beyond fundraising. By
recognising this generational difference,
organisations can connect with young activists
to market their causes and create change that is
“bigger than making money” (Walker, 2009,
paragraph 8).
In 2007, an article in the Wall Street Journal
also cast light on the increasing popularity of
online philanthropy, volunteerism, and activism
among the younger generation (Silverman,
2007). The trend was considered to be different
from the earlier phases on online philanthropy
due to its heavy reliance on interactivity and
social networking. The article also noted the
shift in power from non-profit organisations to
the hands of the individual, with users
spreading awareness for an organisation on
their own. Challenges for non-profits such as
the amount of time needed to update content
and the lack of understanding as to how to best
use the tools were also noted.
Non-profits and relationship building
As e-philanthropy sites progress to more
complex, social good networks, the concept of
using these networks as relationship-building
tools can be informed by a public relations
study by Hon and Grunig (1999). The
researchers identify six components for
measuring long-term relationships between
organisations and their publics. Two of those
components are ‘exchange relationships’ and
‘communal relationships’. In an exchange
relationship, each party gives to the other
expecting something in return. This is typically
a marketing approach to building relationships.
Conversely, in communal relationships, Hon
and Grunig state that “both parties provide
benefits to the other because they are concerned
for the welfare of the other – even when they
get nothing in return” (p. 3). It is pointed out
that both relationships are important and that
many relationships start out as exchange
100
Branston, K., & Bush, L. (2010). The nature of online social good networks and their impact on non-profit
organisations and users. PRism 7(2): http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
4
relationships and then become communal
relationships over time.
In regard to non-profit organisations and
donations, O’Neil (2007) submits that
fundraising is “less about raising money and
more about building relationships” (p. 99).
Using the Hon and Grunig model to study
donor relationships with a large non-profit
organisation, O’Neil found that, although
there was not a correlation between amount
donated and relationship factors, long-term
relationships do impact certain donor
behaviours such as years of support and intent
to recommend others.
In alignment with the Hon and Grunig
model, previous literature on both the users
and the non-profits involved in online
philanthropy seems to point to an evolution in
perspective – from viewing these sites as a
means of exchanging information for
donations, to considering the potential of
social good networks for building deeper,
more communal relationships over time.
Research objectives and questions
This study built on existing literature in order
to take the study of social good networks to
the next level. In particular, the existing
literature underscored the importance of
understanding all aspects of social good
networks – from the features the sites offer to
how both users and non-profits utilise those
features. Previous literature also raised
questions regarding the demographics of
social good network users, how these
demographics relate to differences in usage,
and whether social good networks are viable
tools for soliciting volunteers, donations, and
building deeper relationships. This study
attempted to address these issues through the
following research objectives and questions:
RO1: To better understand the concept of
social good networks by breaking them down
into different types.
RQ1: What kinds of features do social good
networks offer, and how do these features
define the different types of networks?
RO2: To determine the impact of social good
network usage on network users.
RQ2: Why and how do network users utilise
social good networks?
RQ3: What kind of impact have social good
networks had on network users?
RO3: To determine non-profit organisations’
usage of, and attitudes towards, social good
networks.
RQ4: Why and how do non-profit
organisations utilise social good networks?
RQ5: What role do these networks play in the
overall marketing and public relations plans of
non-profit organisations? (i.e. promotional tool,
volunteer recruitment, fundraiser, relationship-
building, etc.)
Method
The research was a three-phase process,
involving a content analysis of 30 social good
networks, a survey of individuals who use the
networks, and in-depth interviews with non-
profits involved with the networks. Data were
collected between August 2008 and January
2009. A mixed methods approach allows the
researchers to verify the findings, refine the
research questions, and continually develop
new research avenues (Greene, Caracelli, &
Graham, 1989), while ensuring that possible
bias from one approach is not duplicated in
another (Axinn & Pearce, 2006).
The first phase of the research was a
qualitative content analysis of 30 cause-related
social good websites. Because these sites
represent a fairly new trend, the qualitative
approach made it possible for the identification
and exploration of new concepts and patterns.
Sites were selected from sources in the
literature review, as well as online search
techniques. Each site represented a unit of
analysis and was selected in a purposive
manner to comprise a wide range of services
including volunteering, donations, awareness,
and full-spectrum services. Though the content
analysis was US-based, many of the sites had a
global reach; covering areas of global concern,
housing international offices, or connecting the
public with specific needs in multiple countries.
Once the sample was determined, each site
was analysed using the constant comparative
technique, as developed by Glaser and Strauss
(1967). The method involves creating initial
102
Branston, K., & Bush, L. (2010). The nature of online social good networks and their impact on non-profit
organisations and users. PRism 7(2): http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
5
categories, refining categories based on what
emerges, and subsequently uncovering
relationships between categories to develop a
logical theoretical structure. A profile of each
site was developed. Aspects such as a site’s
purpose, features, advertising, scope of
interest, and user involvement were recorded
in a comprehensive document. Patterns and
themes began to emerge, and categories
became more defined. Relationships between
those categories were then determined, and
ultimately established into a theoretical
framework.
A quantitative online survey of social good
network users comprised the second phase of
the research methodology. Questions dealt
with the respondent’s general Internet
behaviour, Internet behaviour as it related to
social good networks, attitudes regarding
social good networks, and demographic
information. The survey was developed using
the online survey design tool, Survey
Monkey.
Due to the absence of a complete sampling
frame of all social good network users,
probability sampling was not feasible. Thus,
the survey was distributed through a more
plausible, non-probability sampling approach
by identifying social good sites from the
content analysis that allow for postings and
user messaging. The survey was distributed
through user-to-user messaging on some of
the sites and by posting the survey link on
various cause-related Facebook groups.
Together these distribution methods garnered
70 survey responses. Data were analysed by
looking at the percentages, frequencies, and
distribution of survey responses.
The third phase of the research involved
in-depth interviews with non-profit
organisations. The objective of the interviews
was to determine non-profits’ usage of, and
attitudes toward, social good networks. In
selecting the sample, the researchers
contacted organisations listed on several
social good networks, as well as organisations
that had participated in previous studies. A
$50US donation and a copy of the research
findings were offered as incentives to take
part in the study. The interview process
yielded data from a volunteer sample of seven
organisations.
Participants were recruited in a purposive
manner to include both large and small non-
profits, a wide array of causes, and a varying
degree of online involvement. Five of the
organisations were larger entities, and two were
smaller, locally known entities. Three of the
entities were multinational organisations with
offices or affiliates in multiple countries.
Causes included animal welfare, environmental
protection, health care, historic preservation,
and international aid. Five of the organisations
were well into their involvement with social
good networks, and two were on the verge of
their involvement. Interviewees represented the
organisations’ communications or marketing
departments in the US.
All of the interviews were conducted over
the phone and recorded with an audio device.
Interviews lasted anywhere from 30-45
minutes. Similar to the content analysis
method, data was analysed using the constant
comparative technique. Again, this allowed
categories and relationships to emerge from the
text of the interviews.
Finally, the three aforementioned research
methods – content analysis, survey, and in-
depth interviews – were triangulated in a way
that would extract the underlying
interconnectedness of the results. Each
approach built on the next and subsequently
gave more meaning to previous approaches. An
overarching constant comparative assessment
of the three methods allowed for a cross-
analysis of the findings. Patterns and categories
that emerged transcended all three methods and
formed a framework for the study as a whole.
Findings
Content analysis findings
RQ 1: What kinds of features do social good
networks offer, and how do these features
define the different types of networks?
Looking at the content analysis findings in
comparison with prior research on the topic, the
researchers noted an evolution of the sites.
Previous literature suggests that e-philanthropy
sites were initially used for singular purposes,
such as volunteer matching or donating.
43
Branston, K., & Bush, L. (2010). The nature of online social good networks and their impact on non-profit
organisations and users. PRism 7(2): http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
6
Today’s more sophisticated sites combine all
of these services into one, while also
incorporating newer Web 2.0 features.
Essentially these sites have undergone an
evolution from simple donation portals to
complex networks with multiple services and
features. However, the earlier generation of
simpler, one-track sites still exists.
In the Kellogg report of 2001, three major
domains of action were outlined: giving time
and money, knowledge and capacity building,
and direct online services (Reis & Clohesy,
2001). What was clearly present at that time
were volunteering and donating features, and
what was emerging were news aggregates and
‘social change-making’ features. The content
analysis showed that, while the three Kellogg
domains still exist, the concepts of
networking, user-generated content and peer-
to-peer marketing have since emerged. It was
also found that news aggregates and social
change-making functions, only emerging in
2001, have now become fully integrated into
many of the sites.
By looking at the sites in this way, four
major functions of social good networks began
to appear, which incorporate the domains of the
Kellogg study while also including the new
developments. These four functions are:
inform, act, create, and network. Figure 1
illustrates the features and their corresponding
functions. Some features could cross over into
more than one function, but each feature was
placed into the function that best represents it.
The sites that offer each feature are listed
within the segments of the wheel. The colour
wheel in Figure 1 was inspired by a similar
graphic, which maps social media
conversations (Solis, 2008).
Figure 1: Social good network features and their functions
98
7
Branston, K., & Bush, L. (2010). The nature of online social good networks and their impact on non-profit
organisations and users. PRism 6(2): http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
An analysis of the sites also revealed certain
patterns present on social good networks. These
were observations made through inductive
reasoning that transcended more than one of the
sites in the study. The most notable patterns can
be found in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Emerging patterns on social good networks
Pattern
Feature examples
Site examples
Emphasis on doing
vs.
emphasis on creating
dialogue
Donating and volunteering
Charity badges
Learning about a cause
Blogs
User profiles
Discussion boards
Groups
Networkforgood.com
Gaia.com
User-generated content
vs.
site-generated content
Blogs
Discussion boards
Petitions
Site feedback
Instant messaging
Community-powered news
Donation and volunteer search engines
Resource centres
Non-profit directories
Care2.com
Nabur.com
Universalgiving.org
Volunteermatch.com
Youth-oriented Sites
Embedded video
Celebrity news
Causes of concern to youth
Youthnoise.com
Dosomething.org
Promoting sites across
multiple platforms
Links to Facebook, Twitter, Flickr,
YouTube
Idealist.org
Oneworld.net
Changethepresent.org
Peer-to-peer marketing
Widgets
Cause badges
Personal web pages
‘Friend’ invitations
Facebook.com
Sixdegrees.org
Carebadges.org
Yourcause.com
Rewards for actions taken
Stars
Kudos
Ranking systems
Change.org
Care2.com
Razoo.com
Of all the patterns that emerged, peer-to-peer
marketing appears to be one of the most
significant evolutions in online philanthropy.
Whereas earlier sites contained static content
generated by the site itself, many social good
networks now allow users to create their own
content, and to spread word of a site, a cause, or
a non-profit to other individuals via multiple
Internet platforms. Thus, control of content --
and distribution of that content -- is shifting
from the hands of the non-profits and site
administrators into the hands of the users.
Survey findings
RQ 2: Why and how do users utilise social
good networks?
RQ 3: What kind of impact have social good
networks had on users?
Little is known about the user base of social
good networks, so it is interesting to look at the
makeup of the sample. In terms of gender and
race, the 70 respondents were predominantly
female (64%) and white (81%). At 37%, the
greatest percentage of participants fell between
the ages of 22 and 30, as shown in Figure 3.
When the age categories were condensed,
however, the over-30 population surpassed the
under-30 population, with 53% of the sample.
38
Branston, K., & Bush, L. (2010). The nature of online social good networks and their impact on non-profit
organisations and users. PRism 7(2): http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
8
Figure 3: Social good network users by age
Geographic distribution also revealed some
interesting findings. The survey garnered an
international sample, as 21% of the respondents
resided outside of the US, in Europe, Asia,
Africa, and Australia. This attests to the ability
of social networks to transcend geographic
boundaries. The survey garnered responses
from a fairly educated population, with 93%
completing some college or a graduate degree.
Taken together, the demographic findings help
create a preliminary profile of social good
network users: female, white, well educated,
and global.
The top three ways users reported finding
social good networks were through a link from
another site (49%), through a peer (46%), and
through a search engine (38%). Once again, the
peer-to-peer marketing trend was found to play
a role in the success of social good networks.
The majority of respondents (47%) first visited
the site(s) looking for information about a
certain cause. Once on the sites, users tend to
stay regularly involved, as 68% estimate
visiting them on at least a weekly basis, and
80% report involvement with two or more
causes.
As shown in Figure 4, the two most common
actions taken on the sites were creating a
profile and joining a group, both at 82%.
Signing a petition (69%) and commenting on an
article, blog, or discussion forum (67%) were
also relatively popular actions, whereas finding
a volunteer opportunity (39%) and donating
money (37%) were the least popular actions.
46
Branston, K., & Bush, L. (2010). The nature of online social good networks and their impact on non-profit
organisations and users. PRism 7(2): http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
9
Figure 4: Actions taken by social good network users
A cross-tabulation showed that different
sites might be more or less conducive to certain
actions. For instance, 83% of respondents who
have visited Network for Good report that they
have donated money, whereas 41% of visitors
to Care2 and 51% of visitors to the Facebook
Causes application indicate likewise. On the
other hand, 91% (n=30) of visitors to the
Facebook Causes application and 100% (n=14)
of visitors to the MySpace Causes application
report that they have recruited others for a
specific cause on the site.
Respondents also reported they have spread
word about a social good network by telling a
friend through word-of-mouth (89%), inviting a
friend to join via email or messaging (87%),
sending a link (89%), or creating a badge or
widget (51%). This reveals that a significant
majority has helped spread word about a social
good network – and use a variety of methods to
do so.
When given a series of statements about
social good networks, 86% of respondents
indicated agreement or strong agreement that
going on these sites makes them feel that they
are part of a larger effort to influence positive
social change. Likewise, 83% reported feeling
more informed about what’s going on in the
world and more connected to other socially
concerned people and organisations.
When given a second series of statements,
much smaller percentages, though still
significant, indicated that they volunteer more
of their time due to their involvement (49%) or
are more active in their local communities
because of their involvement (43%). Perhaps
one of the most telling findings is that just 28%
of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with
the statement, “I give more money to non-profit
organisations because of my involvement on
these sites”. These results are shown in Figure
5, over the page.
48
Branston, K., & Bush, L. (2010). The nature of online social good networks and their impact on non-profit
organisations and users. PRism 7(2): http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
10
Figure 5: User involvement resulting from social good networks
In-depth interview findings
RQ 4: Why and how do non-profits utilise
social good networks?
RQ 5: What role do these networks play in non-
profit marketing and public relations plans?
The overarching finding from the interview
data is that non-profits are using social good
networks as long-term, relationship-building
and marketing tools, rather than short-term
fundraising tools. This notion was repeatedly
supported throughout the interviews. A
respondent from a national animal welfare
organisation said, “I’m not sure if we’re ever
going to see a real value as far as donor dollars,
whereas we might see a real value with
marketing”. Another respondent confirmed the
notion, stating, “For us it isn’t a fundraising
tool, it’s more of an advertising tool to bring
people in and let them know why we are a great
organisation to give to”. The interviews
revealed that non-profits are shifting their
perspective of social good networks from solely
an exchange relationship standpoint, to
understanding these networks as a means of
building both exchange relationships and
communal relationships. While respondents
used marketing and advertising terms to explain
these relationships, it was clear that ‘long-term’
rather than ‘immediate’ was the intent of their
online communications.
One reason social good networks are
regarded highly for their marketing capability is
because of the cost effectiveness of using these
sites. “Most of these are either free or very low
cost, so that opens more possibility in terms of
what you’re having to put in for the sake of
what you’re going to get out,” said one
respondent.
Nearly all of the interviewees commented on
how their involvement with these sites
broadens the reach of their organisations,
particularly with like-minded individuals and
younger generations. One respondent from a
large environmental non-profit said, “It’s
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested
